#13 - Criticism that the press panders to public sentiment

[lunalondon]

Hello PowerScore,

I was wondering if my diagram for this problem is right. I got the correct answer but I'm not certain the diagram is what it should be:
NOT PPM <--> (S and OC) --> NOT HJ
HJ --> NOT (S and OC) <--> PPM

Thank you!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi!

Glad to hear you got the question right--and also happy to offer you the right diagram.

The first two sentences of the prompt, suggests the following diagram (which the third sentence revises):

press survives money/profit

In other words, the press has to make money to survive. The third sentence and beginning of the fourth suggest that this diagram should be modified. I take the language ("If the press were not profit-making, who would support it? The only alternative is subsidy...") suggests the first diagram should instead be:

press survives money/profit OR subsidy/OC

This reflects that the press either has to make a profit to survive, or else it can only survive with subsidy/outside control. The last sentence could be diagrammed:

subsidy propaganda

subsidy honest journalism

It's that last piece that gets you to the right answer. If you put the above diagrams together, you know that if the press survives, it's because it made money, or else because it relied on subsidy. But the last diagram tells us that honest journalism never gets subsidies. So if the press is to produce honest journalism (and implicitly survive in doing so), then only way it can do so it by making money/profit.

Hope that helps!

[lunsandy]

Hi!

I am struggling with the diagraming for this question. When the stim says "If the press is not profit-making" that introduces the sufficient so /PM --> . However, the next sentence "the only alternative is subsidy," I got confused with the diagram because I thought "the only" also introduces sufficiency S --->. I see how reading it as English it makes sense that the sentence before it /PM should introduce the sufficiency and because the only alternative is S in the next line then it should be /PM ---> S + OC. I found it unusual that a conditional statement stopped halfway in the first sentence then continued with the second?

I saw in the previous post the administrator diagrammed as /PM ---> S ---> OC. But, shouldn't it be /PM ---> S + OC. /OC or /S --> PM? Since the stimulus says "the only alt. is subsidy AND, with it, outside control?

[James Finch]

Hi Luna,

The first two sentences set up the following conditional chain:

To survive, the press must make a profit, which requires pandering to public sentiment, or:

Survive MP PPS

Then we have a second conditional string set up by the last three sentences:

The press doesn't make a profit, so it requires subsidies, which means it must make propaganda, which requires that it not engage in honest journalism, or:

MP Sub. Prop. HJ

and the contrapositive:

HJ Prop. Sub. MP

Showing that honest journalism ultimately requires making a profit, according to the stimulus. The contrapositive of the conditional chain is often the inference that the test makers are looking for in the correct answer to a Must Be True question involving conditional reasoning, so prephrasing HJ MP would be the recommended thing to look out for amongst the answer choices. Sure enough, (D) ends up being a restatement of that inference.

Hope this clears things up!

[oadeboy1]

Hi

After reading some of the explainations I still do not understand this. Can you take a look at my logic and correct it?

Like other private enterprises, it has to make money to survive.

Key points in this sentence
It is referring to the press.
it has to is equivalent to must be

The press is a profit-making institution -----> money to survive

Contrapositive

NO money to survive -----> NOT The press is a profit-making institution


The only alternative is a subsidy and, with it, outside control.

Key points in this sentence
Only is referring to the subsidy, and, with it, outside control

Press is a profit-making institution -----> subsidy and outside control

Contrapositive
NO subsidy or outside control -----> Press is NOT a profit-making institution

It is easy to get subsidies for propaganda, but no one will subsidize honest journalism.

What won't anyone do?
subsidize

NO Subsidize -----> honest journalism

contrapositive

NO honest journalism ------> Subsidize

[Adam Tyson]

Looks like we have a few minor errors here, oadeboy1. First, the fact that the press is a profit-making institution is not a sufficient condition. There is no relationship in the stimulus that is equal to "if the press is profit-making, then it makes money to survive", which is what your first diagram represents. Instead, "it has to make money to survive" is equivalent to "if it is to survive, then it must make money", or:

Survive Money

Your next diagram would be read in simple English as "if the press is profit-making, then it requires subsidy and outside control", but that is not what the author is saying. Instead, he is saying that if the press is NOT profit-making, then it must be subsidized and subject to outside control. It should be:

Profit Subsidy & Outside Control

Finally, the phrase "no one will subsidize honest journalism" has a tricky structure. We see claims like this that start with "no" or "none" frequently, and those terms actually negate the necessary condition. If no one will subsidize honest journalism, then if it is honest it will not be subsidized, and if it is subsidized it will not be honest. You have your negation on the wrong side in your diagram. It should be:

Honest Subsidy
Subsidy Honest

Putting this last bit together with the one prior, we can build a chain, like so:

Profit Subsidy Honest

or

Honest Subsidy Profit

Remember that your diagrams should read like an "if...then" statement that matches what was said in the stimulus. If the meaning is altered, the diagram is incorrect. Test your diagrams by saying to yourself "if (my sufficient condition), then (my necessary condition.)"

Give that another try and see if it makes more sense. Good luck!

[DesignLaw806]

Hello,

Is it a fair assessment to say, conditionally speaking, a interrogative statement with the answer that follows in the stimulus can serve as the necessary condition?

i.e. If the press were not profit-making, who would support it? The only alternative (person or group providing support) is subsidy...

Just trying to strengthen my forest from the trees approach rather than looking at all the trees individually.

[George George]

@DesignLaw806 Yes! I would sanction that as a general rule (though it is very rare on the LSAT).

[manderz]

After reading this, I'm still a bit confused how D is the right answer. I'm not sure how you got the last diagram as a sufficient and necessary condition because I didn't see any sufficient or necessary words in the last sentence? I'm a little confused can you please explain how you did all the sufficient and necessary conditions and how you got them for this question? Thank you

[Jeremy Press]

Hi manderz,

The conditional indicator phrase in the last sentence is "no one." We treat that (along with "no," "none," and "no one who") as a sufficient condition indicator, although it's tricky because then you have to negate the remaining (the necessary) condition when you diagram it.

So, in the sentence "No one will subsidize honest journalism," the phrase "No one" modifies "subsidize." Thus, we diagram subsidy as the sufficient condition. Before diagramming honest journalism as the necessary condition, we must negate it. Thus the diagram becomes: Subsidy NOT Honest Journalism. The contrapositive that other posts in this thread have noted would then be: Honest Journalism NOT Subsidized.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy