Q10 - Journalist: Some critics argue that as the entertainme

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Sufficient Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion rephrase: Increasing the entertainment value of news doesn't necessarily decrease the quality of it.
Premise: The best journalists were the most entertaining.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument definitely overlaps in the discussion of entertainment value. However, the premise speaks about the best journalists, and the conclusion is about the caliber of reporting. While those two ideas are related, they're not the same. The correct answer will have to connect the best journalists with high-caliber reporting.

Correct Answer:
(A)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Winner! These journalists were both the most entertaining and of the highest caliber, so increasing entertainment must not necessarily decrease quality.

(B) Out of scope. First off, entertainers aren't necessarily all that entertaining. Second, even with this answer, we haven't connected great journalists with great reporting.

(C) Out of scope. Value? This is a new concept that isn't discussed in the argument.

(D) Out of scope. This answer speaks to the categories of entertainment and news. We care about the entertainment value of news. If anything, this would be necessary, but it's not sufficient to prove anything about the caliber of the best journalists.

(E) Opposite. If anything, this would serve as evidence for the critics viewpoint, with which the author disagrees.

Takeaway/Pattern: Sufficient Assumption questions usually rely on connecting ideas in the premise(s) and conclusion. Sometimes, the gap is between terms that most people would consider equivalent. Take a strict approach to this idea on the LSAT, though - if there's any wiggle room, there's a gap. Here, there's wiggle room between being a great journalist and the caliber of reporting, and that's what the question exploits.

#officialexplanation