# Another LR Question

#### Dixon

##### Another LR Question
« on: August 10, 2004, 06:24:49 AM »

Preptest 27 Section 4 #25 (page 307 in 10 More...)

All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. Therefore, if the press agent told every reporter everything about the accident, then no reporter knows any more about it than any other reporter. If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. However, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident. It follows that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters.

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?

A) The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to any reporter.

B) Even if some reporter knows more about the accident than all of the other reporters, that reporter need not scoop any other reporter.

C) Some reporter may have been told something about the accident that the reporter tells all of the other reporters.

D) The press agent may not know any more about the accident than the most knowledeable reporter.

E) No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.

#### Matthew_24_24

##### Re: Another LR Question
« Reply #1 on: August 10, 2004, 06:40:31 AM »
Learn logical rules.

Hugs,

Matthew

#### hdsteele

##### Re: Another LR Question
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2004, 07:00:23 AM »
All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. Therefore, if the press agent told every reporter everything about the accident, then no reporter knows any more about it than any other reporter. If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. However, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident. It follows that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters.

Up until line 7 EVERYBODY has been told EVERYTHING. But then it changes.  PA didnt tell EVERY reporter EVERYTHING literally meaning there was NO ONE that knew EVERYTHING. EVERY, ALL, NONE, EVERYTHING are used in the literal sense. When it says that the press agent didnt tell every reporter everything it means exactly that not that he told some everything and some less.

I narrowed it down to A and E.

A) The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to any reporter.

E) No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.

E wins out (to me) because of the it applies to the conclusion better than A.  The conclusion deals with the a reporter scooping other reporters.  Answer A concerns the press agent, E reporters.

But then again, I am battling to stay above 160 so what do I know!!!  Anyone agree or disagree?

#### cascagrossa

• 2424
##### Re: Another LR Question
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2004, 10:51:10 AM »
All any reporter knows about the accident is what the press agent has said. Therefore, if the press agent told every reporter everything about the accident, then no reporter knows any more about it than any other reporter. If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters. However, the press agent did not tell every reporter everything about the accident. It follows that some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters.

Up until line 7 EVERYBODY has been told EVERYTHING. But then it changes.  PA didnt tell EVERY reporter EVERYTHING literally meaning there was NO ONE that knew EVERYTHING. EVERY, ALL, NONE, EVERYTHING are used in the literal sense. When it says that the press agent didnt tell every reporter everything it means exactly that not that he told some everything and some less.

I narrowed it down to A and E.

A) The press agent did not tell everything about the accident to any reporter.

E) No reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter.

E wins out (to me) because of the it applies to the conclusion better than A.  The conclusion deals with the a reporter scooping other reporters.  Answer A concerns the press agent, E reporters.

But then again, I am battling to stay above 160 so what do I know!!!  Anyone agree or disagree?

also, A is wrong because it does not prove that the arguement is flawed.

i found the answer right in the stimulus: the author first says "If no reporter knows any more about the accident than any other reporter, then no reporter can scoop all of the other reporters." and then the author then concludes that "some reporter can scoop all of the other reporters."  so you are looking for an answer choices that makes the conclusion flawed, which is exactly what E does.