#22 - Everyone should have access to more than one newspaper

[Adam Tyson]

Hey puppy, I think you got it. But just in case you didn't, consider this:

I did not eat every piece of the pizza.

This statement means there is at least one piece of pizza that I did not eat. I didn't eat all the pizza. But it does not mean that I ate none! I could have eaten all but one piece, and this would still be a true statement.

Similarly, if a newspaper cannot cover all sides of every story, that doesn't mean the cannot cover all sides of some stories. It's just that at least one story will not be covered in that way!

So, if a newspaper covers all sides of the important stories, but does not cover all sides of even one unimportant story, then it would be true that it did not cover all sides of every story. It only covered all sides of some stories.

[queenbee]

Hi
I am still not clear on why B is incorrect. Doesn't one of the conclusions state that everyone should have access to more than one newspaper? And if both, or multiple, newspapers have the same problem where they do not cover all sides of an important story, isn't that the flaw?
Thank you

[Robert Carroll]

queenbee,

The stimulus never acts like two newspapers will be adequate. It thinks that anything less than two newspapers will be inadequate. We could even write that as a conditional:

"If you have fewer than two newspapers, you won't get every side of every important story"

That's not equivalent to the following:

"If you have two or more newspapers, you will get every side of every important story"

Answer choice (B) is treating the mistake in the stimulus as if it thinks the second conditional is true. That conditional is the Mistaken Negation of the first conditional, which the argument does believe. So the argument simply does not believe the conditional answer choice (B) accuses it of believing.

Robert Carroll

[tlatimer]

Hi, this thread has been helpful for me to understanding the flaw. However, I initially thought that the last part ("some important stories would not be adequately covered if there were only one newspaper") was the main conclusion/point. What makes the first part the main conclusion and not the last? (The word "Since" at the beginning of the second sentence made me think the last part of that sentence was the main conclusion and not an intermediate one.)

[Paul Popa]

Hi TLA,

Great question! "For" is a premise indicator, so we know the first clause is a conclusion of some sort. We then get another premise indicator with "since," and then another conclusion with "some important stories..." In determining a main conclusion, I always ask myself "Where does the argument stop advancing? What is the final course of action the author wants me to take?" Because I know that one of these conclusions is intermediate (and thus a premise) I'll put the two together and ask myself which is more likely. Is it that:

Some important stories would not be adequately covered if there were only one newspaper BECAUSE everyone should have access to more than one newspaper?

OR:

Everyone should have access to more than one newspaper BECAUSE some important stories would not be adequately covered if there were only one newspaper?

The second one seems way more plausible, and since "because" is a premise indicator, we can safely say that "Everyone should have access to more than one newspaper" is the final conclusion. So, we can rearrange the argument as follows:

P1: There are at least two sides to every story.
P2: All sides of an important story should be covered.
P3: No newspaper adequately covers all sides of every one of its stories.
IC: Some important stories would not be adequately covered if there were only one newspaper.
FC: Therefore, everyone should have access to more than one newspaper.

Hope this helps!

[djokly]

Hi menkenj & daydreamingsamosa!

menkenj: Answer choice (B) is incorrect because the author does not overlook the possibility that two newspapers could provide the same incomplete coverage of the same important stories. The author says that everyone should have access to "more than one" newspaper but nowhere does the author say that if you have access to two newspapers you'll get complete coverage. Basically the author is saying that more than one newspaper is necessary to get complete coverage but does not say that more than one newspaper is sufficient to get complete coverage and also doesn't say that specifically two newspapers would provide complete coverage.

daydreamingsamosa: The wording here is definitely a little bit tricky! But the phrase "inability to cover all sides of any important story" does not necessarily mean that no important story will get coverage of all sides. On the LSAT, any and every are often used somewhat interchangeably--grammatically speaking, there are slight differences between these terms and they can be used differently in different contexts. But, for example, "any" and "every" are both sufficient indicator terms. So you could interpret it as "inability to cover all sides of every important story"--meaning that there will at least be some important stories that do not get coverage of all sides. You could also interpret "any" to mean "one or more." In that case it would read "inability to cover all sides of one or more important stories." This, again, would mean that there will at least be some important stories that do not get coverage of all sides but does not necessarily mean that no important story will get full coverage.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

Hi. I still don't get the explanation for how "inability to cover all sides of any important story" (let's call this sentence no. 1) has the same meaning as "inability to cover all sides of every important story." Although the word "any" can usually be interchanged with words like "all" or "every," I don't think you can do that here. The phrase "any important story" in sentence no.1 means "regardless of which story one chooses." This means that the "inability to cover all sides" applies to every single one of the stories. The word "any" in sentence no.1 means the same thing as the for the word in the following sentence: "Take any medicine and you'll be fine."

Am I understanding the grammar wrong? I really want to get my head around this question.

Thank you very much!

Very respectfully,

Djokly.

[Dana D]

Hey Djokly,

You are correct with one small but important distinction. You said: "The phrase "any important story" in sentence no.1 means "regardless of which story one chooses." This means that the "inability to cover all sides" applies to every single one of the stories."

In actuality, this means regardless of which story one choses, there will be an inability to cover all sides of that particular story. So, even with the reasoning of the stimulus, it is possible for one newspaper to cover all the sides of one (any) important (singular) story. That is why the conclusion is flawed - one newspaper couldn't write about all sides to every single story, but they could do very in-depth coverage of one story and cover every side.

Does that make sense?