Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT112 S1 Q8 Explanation

It has been claimed that

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

TopicsWeaken

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

It has been claimed that television networks should provide equal time for the presentation of opposing views whenever a television program concerns scientific issues—such as those raised by the claims of environmentalists—about which people disagree. However, although an obligation to provide equal time does arise in the case of any program concerning a program concerns scientific issues, that program gives rise to no such equal time obligation.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Conclusion

The author wants you to walk away thinking: TV programs about science don't need to give equal time to opposing views.

Evidence

The reason equal time is required for social-issue programs, the author says, is that social issues (1) have political implications and (2) can't be settled by evidence. Then the author says scientific issues are different and so don't trigger the obligation.

Evaluate

Notice the unstated leap. The author's own rule is: a topic triggers the equal-time obligation if it has political implications and can't be settled by evidence. The author assumes scientific issues don't have those features. To weaken the argument, we just need to show that scientific issues actually do have both features. If they do, the author's own reasoning would force the obligation onto them too — contradicting the conclusion.

Goal

The right answer says: scientific issues actually do have important political implications and can't be settled by evidence — pulling the rug out from under the author's distinction.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
8.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens

Answer choices

  1. Strengthens5% picked this

    No scientific issues raised by the claims of environmentalists have important

    If scientific issues raised by environmentalists have no important political implications, then by the author's own rule (political implications are part of what triggers the obligation), they don't trigger it. This actually supports the conclusion that science programs are exempt — it doesn't weaken the argument. We need an answer that goes the other direction.

  2. No Impact6% picked this

    There are often more than two opposing views on an issue that cannot be definitely settled on the

    The number of opposing views (two vs. more than two) doesn't change whether equal time is required. The argument hinges on whether scientific issues have the same triggering features (political implications + can't be settled by evidence) as social issues — not on how many opposing views any given issue has. This is tangential.

  3. No Impact7% picked this

    Some social issues could be definitely settled on the basis of evidence if the opposing sides would give all the

    This is about a hypothetical — that some social issues could be settled if everyone gave evidence a fair hearing. The argument's premise is that social issues seldom are settled on available evidence; this answer doesn't challenge that. And it says nothing about scientific issues. It doesn't move the question of whether scientific issues should be treated like social issues.

  4. Correct79% picked this

    Many scientific issues have important political implications and cannot be definitely settled on the basis

    Why this is right

    This is the weakener. The author said the equal-time obligation arises from two features: (1) important political implications and (2) inability to be settled by available evidence. The author assumed scientific issues lacked these. (D) directly contradicts that assumption — many scientific issues have important political implications and can't be definitely settled on available evidence. By the author's own rule, those scientific issues should trigger the equal-time obligation, undermining the conclusion that scientific programs are exempt.

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

  5. No Impact3% picked this

    Some television networks refuse to broadcast programs on issues that have important political implications and that cannot be definitely

    This says some networks refuse to broadcast certain programs. The argument is about obligations when networks do air programs, not about networks' choices to air them in the first place. Whether some networks decline these programs doesn't affect whether equal time is required when programs are aired.

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