Logical Reasoning

PT104 · S4 · Q2 The average cable television company

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

The average cable television company offers its customers 50 channels, but new fiber-optic lines will enable telephone companies to provide 100 to 150 television channels to their customers for the same price as cable companies charge for 50.

Conclusion (therefore)

Cable companies will be displaced by the new television services offered by phone companies within a few years.

Evidence

The average cable company offers 50 channels, but phone companies using fiber-optic lines will be able to offer 100-150 channels at the same price.

Evaluate

This author is making the prediction that .

This assumes that "more channels" is actually a selling point, so we could Strengthen by saying , or something to that effect.

In order to Strengthen a case, we need to know its vulnerabilities, so we might also want to think about how someone could make the argument that .

We could say stuff like, - The channels on cable are better (ESPN, Bravo, etc.) than the channels offered on fiber optic (150 channels that all show syndicated TV shows from the 1970s).

- The customer service reps for the cable company are much better to deal with than those at the phone company

- Fiber optic cable won't be available in enough places for that many people to make the switch

- They'll be a disinformation campaign that fiber optic cable (cough: 5G) is a sinister ploy to allow the government to eavesdrop in our homes

- People are committed to a five-year contract with their cable provider, and it's very expensive to break that contract

Goal

Let's look for a Linking idea connecting "more channels" with .

Or look for an answer that addresses the broader Net Gain / Loss attached to this decision. Someone might decide to stay with cable because even though they wish they had 100-150 channels, there are other aspects of cable that are better.

So any answer that picks some other aspect besides # of channels and tells us that fiber-optic is at least as good as cable can also strengthen.

Which one of the following, if true, most helps to strengthen the argument?

The initial cost per household
Weakens
If the start-up costs of getting fiber-optic TV are high, then people would be less willing to make the switch. So this answer seems to trend more in a Weaken direction.
2% picked this
Correct
The most popular movies and
Why this is right
This is strengthening by ruling out an objection. Someone might have said, "Sure, the phone company can offer 100+ channels, but they all suck! I'd rather have the 50 good channels that I can get on cable." This rules out that concern: the fiber-optic package of channels will still let you see your favorite shows and movies.
Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
92% picked this
Cable television companies will respond
Weakens
If cable companies will respond by increasing the number of channels they offer from 50 to something more comparable to (or better than) the phone company's 100-150, then people won't have as much incentive to switch. Someone on a cable plan could think, "Why bother going through the hassle of switching? My cable plan will soon have 100+ channels too."
2% picked this
Some telephone companies own cable
No Impact / Too Weak
Answers that only convey "at least one" are almost always wrong on Strengthen, Weaken, Principle-Strengthen, Paradox, and Sufficient Assumption (these are the question types that are asking for the most powerful answer). Learning that there's at least one phone company that also operates a cable company in a different area does nothing for this conversation about whether a consumer would switch from cable to fiber-optic.
4% picked this
The new fiber-optic services offered
Unclear Impact
Do you want the channels on your TV subject to more stringent governmental programming regulations? Or would you rather your channels have more freedom to say / show what they want? That's a question that different people would answer different ways. The morally conservative might hear "stringent regulations" as a good thing that protects their children from being exposed to risqué content. People that want the sex and violence of "Game of Thrones" might hear "stringent regulations" and think, "No, thanks, I'll stick with cable." Since there isn't a common-sense association between "more stringent regulations" and consumer demand, it's not clear whether this helps or hurts or both.
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