Logical Reasoning

PT119 · S4 · Q12 Several legislators claim that the public

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

Several legislators claim that the public finds many current movies so violent as to be morally offensive.

Conclusion

The public does not find many current movies to be so violent as to be morally offensive.

Evidence

In a survey of movie guild members, who see far more movies than the average person, only 17% thought movies were too violent and only 3% found any of them morally offensive.

Evaluation

This seems like a Sampling flaw, since, as the author points out, the members of the movie guild are probably not representative of the public when it comes to movies, since guild members see way more movies (they might get desensitized to the violent) and because they have a vested interest in defending the movie industry (since that's their employer).

Goal

Look for an answer that calls into question whether we should let the movie guild speak for public opinion.

12.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. attempts to undermine the legislators’

    Bad Premise Match

    The author does address their argument, by citing as survey that is about whether movies are too violent or offensive. This answer describes the famous flaw Ad Hominem

    2% picked this

  2. bases its conclusion on subjective

    Not a Flaw, Here

    If the issue being discussed were factual or objective in nature, then yes it would be bad to base an argument on subjective judgments. But here the issue being discussed is subjective in nature, whether the public feels that movies are too violent / offensive. So having subjective evidence is very appropriate. This sounds like an Inappropriate Appeal (to Opinion), but because the conclusion is about opinion it's an appropriate appeal.

    3% picked this

  3. fails to consider the possibility

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This potential objection would be for a conversation about "whether or not it's okay [normative] for there to be violence in movies". This conversation is a descriptive one about "whether or not the public generally thinks that movies are too violent / offensive."

    0% picked this

  4. Correct

    generalizes from a sample that

    Why this is right

    Since the movie guild members have a vested interest in defending the movie industry and since they're potentially desensitized to its excesses (by seeing more movies than most), they aren't a reliable stand-in for public sentiment.

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

    89% picked this

  5. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Out of Scope: random sampling

    There's no real indication how the survey was structured. It sounds like they just asked people what their feelings about movies were, and those people answered based on the movies they've seen (in their lifetime). I don't know if the author has to assume that that's a random sample. A non-random sample wouldn't necessarily hurt the argument. They may have reminded the guild members of some of the recent movies that have been singled out as being too violent / offensive (that would be non-random but make the survey results even more compelling in the author's favor).

    6% 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