A local television station is considering

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct93% picked this

   Parents would read and pay attention to the ratings listed in

   Why this is right

   This sounds like something the author / the plan is definitely assuming. After all, what would be the value or point of inventing a rating system if parents never saw the ratings? (This is such an old LSAT that a modern student may be thinking ... "Wouldn't the rating just show up on the DVR menu or at the outset of the show?" ... but back in the day, there was no Home screen where you could search shows and read info. There was just a TV guide that came in the mail or the TV listings that appeared in the newspaper). We can tell this needs to be assumed, because if we negate it, it turns into an objection. If we said, "Sorry, author -- parents will not read or pay attention to these ratings", then that derails the whole intended functionality of the system. The intended functionality was 1. form a panel 2. panel watches shows and rates them 3. ratings would be listed in newspapers (4. parents would read and pay attention to the ratings listed in newspapers) 5. parents would be forewarned about the level of violence in any given program.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   93%
2. B

   Unknown Comparison0% picked this

   There would be fewer shows rated with one gun than with

   The author hasn't said anything that indicates whether she believes there will be more shows rated max violence or min violence. It wouldn't change the plan at all if there were more shows rated with four guns. That just means parents would be forewarned that most shows are very violent.

   0%
3. C

   Too Strong: most effective2% picked this

   The rating system described in the passage is the most effective

   We're always nervous about strong language in Necessary Assumption answers. Does the author need to assume that this system is the most effective system available. If we negate it, and we say it's only the 2nd most effective, does that hurt the argument? No, because the 2nd most effective system could still be plenty effective. Something doesn't need to be the #1 best option in order to "achieve its stated purpose".

   2%
4. D

   Out of Scope: Obligation4% picked this

   The local television station has an obligation to forewarn parents of the level of violence

   This has nothing to do with whether the Plan would achieve its stated Goal (which is our task). Instead, it seems to be about whether we should even have the goal of forewarning parents. If we negate this and say, "Hey, TV station -- you have no obligation to forewarn parents", they could just say, "Yeah, we know. We agree. We're not obligated to. But we're going to, out of the goodness of our hearts". Saying they're not obligated to do what their plan intends to do is not an objection arguing that their plan will not do what their plan intends.

   4%
5. E

   Out of Scope Prediction1% picked this

   Television producers of programs rated as having high levels of violence would make an effort

   We have no idea how other people will react to this plan. All we're measuring is whether or not it will successfully forewarn parents about the level of violence. Whether TV producers react to this program by changing the level of violence in their shows or whether they do nothing doesn't change anything about whether the rating system successfully forewarned parents about violence.

   1%