Logical Reasoning

PT126 · S1 · Q21 Advertiser: Most TV shows

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

Advertiser: Most TV shows depend on funding from advertisers and would be canceled without such funding.

Conclusion (thus)

If you feel like a TV show is worth preserving, then you should buy the stuff advertised during that show.

Intermediate Conclusion (so)

If most people fail to buy the stuff advertised during their favorite shows, the show will be canceled.

Evidence

If many people don't buy the stuff advertised during a show, then advertisers won't pay for those commercials anymore, which would lead to most shows being canceled.

Goal

We want a principle that will tell us to buy stuff advertised during the show. The trigger should have something to do with the idea that, .

So we want something like, .

21.

The advertiser's reasoning most closely conforms to which one of the following principles?

  1. If a TV show that

    Weaker Evidence Match

    This is saying "If a show is worth preserving AND a show would be canceled if you didn't take a certain action, you should take that action". The outcome is a decent match for "you should buy the advertised stuff". Does the trigger match the evidence? Were we told that "if you don't buy the advertised stuff, the show will be canceled"? Ooooh, reaaally close but not quite. We were told that "if people generally don't buy the advertised stuff, the show will be canceled". One person not-buying the stuff isn't enough to get the show canceled, so we can't actually trigger this rule.

    26% picked this

  2. Correct

    If a TV show would

    Why this is right

    This is saying "If a show would be canceled if many people didn't take a certain action, then everyone who feels the show is worth preserving should take that action." This is a better fit than (A). There's technically a quantifier mismatch between saying "many people don't buy the advertised stuff" and saying "most people don't buy the advertised stuff". (e.g. it's true that "many U.S. senators are women" but it's not true that "most U.S. senators are women", because most specifically means more than half) But this is still the best available answer. We were told that if most people didn't buy the advertised products, then the show would get canceled, which essentially triggers this rule, and allows us to say something very similar to the conclusion: anyone who thinks this show is worth keeping better buy that advertised stuff.

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

    56% picked this

  3. If a TV show is

    Bad Evidence Match

    We'll never be able to trigger this rule, because the evidence never talked about specific shows that ARE worth preserving. It's just trying to tell people who FEEL a show is worth preserving, that they should buy the advertised stuff. This also gets a little sloppy in the sense that we can't say "it's necessary for person X to buy the advertised stuff to prevent that show from being canceled". Instead, it's necessary for "most viewers of the show to buy the advertised stuff", and no single person can take the action of "most viewers buy the stuff".

    3% picked this

  4. If one feels that a

    Weaker Conclusion Match

    The trigger of this rule has nothing to do with the evidence (it's just borrowing wording from the conclusion). And the outcome of this rule is too weak to force us to buy the advertised stuff. It could just force us to take at least ONE action that makes it less likely the show will be canceled (but that action doesn't necessarily have to be buying the advertised products). Buying the products advertised on the show you like would probably reduce the likelihood of that show being canceled. But maybe telling your friends to watch the show would also reduce the likelihood of that show being canceled.

    11% picked this

  5. If a TV show would

    Weaker Conclusion Match

    This is super similar to (B) and would be be pseudo-triggered the same way (again, we're forgiving the many vs. most mismatch). But the outcome here matches the conclusion worse than the outcome of (B). This rule only forces those who feel most strongly that a show is worth preserving to take action, whereas (B) is forcing everyone who thinks the show is worth preserving to take action, which aligns more with the argument's conclusion.

    4% 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