Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S2 · Q13 A local television station is considering

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

A local television station is considering a plan to create a panel of child psychologists to review programs in advance of their airing and rate the level of violence.

Plan

Create a panel of psychologists that can review TV shows before they air and rate their level of violence. High violence would be signified by 4 guns; low violence listed with 1 gun.

Goal

Parents could be warned about the level of violence in any given program.

Evaluate

When we're objecting to Plans, rather than arguments, we're treating the Plan like the Evidence (accept it) and treating the Goal like the Conclusion (fight it).

So how could we enact this rating system, but parents are not forewarned about the level of violence in any given program?

- maybe the parents never check this listing (it's in the newspaper?!) - maybe the psychologists have a skewed sense of violence and rank shows very differently from how parents would perceive them - maybe some shows air live, so the panel wouldn't be able to pre-screen them and rank them - maybe the silly rating system of "Low violence = 1 gun" would send the wrong message -- i.e. parents would assume there's violence in that show (since it's rated with a gun), when that's really meant to mean violence-free

Goal

Since this is Necessary Assumption, we're looking for an answer that asserts something that must be true for this plan to work, or (probably more likely) an answer that rules out a potential objection to this plan that would suggest it won't achieve its goal.

13.

Which one of the following must the television station assume in order to conclude that the plan will meet its stated purpose?

  1. Correct

    Parents would read and pay

    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% picked this

  2. There would be fewer shows

    Unknown Comparison

    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% picked this

  3. The rating system described in

    Too Strong: 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% picked this

  4. The local television station has

    Out of Scope: Obligation

    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% picked this

  5. Television producers of programs rated

    Out of Scope Prediction

    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% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free