Q8 - The local news media have long

[mshinners]

Question Type:
ID the Conclusion

Stimulus Breakdown:
Media darling Clemens was recently shown to be corrupt. This demonstrates that the media was too deferential to public figures, which even the local newpaper's editor admits.

Answer Anticipation:
"This demonstrates" is the key phrase here, indicating a conclusion preceded by premises. The first two statements are evidence for the third sentence, so that's a conclusion. The admission by the editor is further evidence of the deference afforded public figures, so the conclusion is that local media is too deferential.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Background/counterpoint.

(B) Premise supporting that they were too deferential.

(C) Boom. (That's the sound of a mic dropping.)

(D) Premise supporting that they were too deferential (so deferential, in fact, that they didn't really investigate).

(E) If anything, this answer is an assumption of the argument. It's definitely not stated in the argument, so it can't be the conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern:
In questions focusing on argument structure, pay a lot of attention to structural indicator words.

#officialexplanation

[LukeM22]

I'm probably overthinking things, but what is the difference between


"this [local newspaper's treatment of Clemens] demonstrates how the local media show too much deference towards public figures"

and

"The local newspapers of Clemens is indicative of its treatment of public figures in general"

?

[ohthatpatrick]

A couple problems:

1. the author's conclusion is specifically saying that the local media shows too much deference toward public figures, and Clemens is an example of that.

(E) is broader, saying that ALL of the paper's treatment of Clemens relates to how they treat public figures in general.


2. If (E) were the conclusion, think about what the support would actually sound like.
"How they treat Clemens is indicative of how they treat public figures in general"
what's the support?
HERE'S how they treat Clemens,
HERE'S how they treat public figures in general

The argument doesn't sound like that.

Meanwhile, with (C)
"The media show too much deference toward public figures"
what's the support?
They heralded Clemens and neglected to follow leads that would have exposed his eventual scandal earlier

Finally, consider this:
Patrick gave roses to Alexis, but she was allergic to them. This demonstrates how flowers can be a bad gift.

Is the conclusion:
"Flowers can be a bad gift"
or
"Patrick's gift to Alexis demonstrates how flowers can be a bad gift"

The 2nd one is an entire argument. When you plugged in the premise to the claim "This demonstrates _______ ", you'd be turning the conclusion into a claim that says "This premise demonstrates this conclusion.

That would be an entire argument, not just the conclusion itself.

So when you see "This demonstrates _______ ", you want to think LSAT is identifying the previous claim as a supporting reason for believing the current claim. Hence the current claim is a conclusion.