All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. Therefore, if the press agent told every...
BK8February 5, 2020
Why E
"The argument's reasoning is flawed because the argument fails to recognize that which one of the following is consistent with the facts the argument presents?"
This throws me off the answer because it does not seem like the answer choice was stated as a fact in the passage. Is it not entirely possible that the reporter told one person everything and told others varying lengths below the full story? Why is E considered a fact?
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
This question is asking you to find the flaw in the reasoning. Aka, it's asking you to find the gap between the premises and the conclusion and identify the answer choice which matches that gap. The answer choice does not need to be stated as a fact in the passage but rather just needs to identify what the conclusion is missing.
Answer (E) is correct because the author fails to acknowledge that it is possible that the press agent told no reporters anything. The argument tells us that the press agent did not tell every reporter everything and then assumes that that means that a reporter could scope the others, but this assumption is based on the idea that the press agent told at least one reporter anything. It's possible that no one knows anything, and therefore that they still can't scope each other.
BK8February 5, 2020
When it says, " the argument fails to recognize that which one of the following is consistent with the facts the argument presents?" is it not saying that "the following" (E) is consistent with the facts that the argument presents?
RaviFebruary 5, 2020
@BK8, that's precisely what it's saying. It's saying that (E) is consistent with the facts of the argument, and that's why the argument is flawed. The argument is flawed because it's failing to take into account that even though the press reporter didn't tell every reporter everything about the accident, it's possible that there two or more reporters who know the same amount of information and know more than the rest of the reporters. If this is true, then the conclusion that some reporter can scoop all of the other ones doesn't necessarily follow.
Does this help? Let us know if you have any other questions!
Asaad32February 25, 2020
This chain of comments really cleared it up
AndreaKMarch 15, 2020
@Asaad32, we're happy to help! Feel free to let us know if you have anymore questions not otherwise addressed here.
