Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT129 S4 P1 Q2 Explanation

The FCC and Public Interest

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

TopicsLocal PurposeLaw

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

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.

Passage

The United States government agency responsible for overseeing television and radio broadcasting, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), had an early history of addressing only the concerns of parties with an economic interest in broadcasting—chiefly broadcasting companies. The rights of viewers and listeners were not recognized by the FCC, which regarded them merely hearing. Consequently, the FCC appeared to be exclusively at the service of the broadcasting industry.

A landmark case changed the course of that history. In 1964, a local television station in Jackson, Mississippi was applying for a renewal of its broadcasting license. The United Church of Christ, representing Jackson's African American population, petitioned the FCC for a hearing about the broadcasting policies of that station. The church citizens' groups representing community preferences would begin to enter the closed worlds of government and industry.

The church appealed the FCC's decision in court, and in 1967 was granted the right to a public hearing on the station's request for a long-term license. The hearing was to little avail: the FCC dismissed much of the public input and granted a full renewal to the station. The church appealed as such, should be accorded the right to challenge the renewal of the station's broadcasting license.

The case established a formidable precedent for opening up to the public the world of broadcasting. Subsequent rulings have supported the right of the public to question the performance of radio and television licensees before the FCC at renewal time every three years. Along with racial issues, a range of other matters—from political viewpoints—are now discussed at licensing proceedings because of the church's intervention.

What this question is testing

Local Purpose

Topic

The author is telling the story of a regulator (the FCC) that used to ignore the public — and the church group that, through a long court fight, forced it to listen.

Framework

Highlight Noteworthy. The author isn't arguing against an opposing view — they're celebrating a turning point and explaining how it happened.

Main Point

Here's the simpler version: for a long time, only broadcasters had a seat at the FCC table. A church group representing African American Mississippians tried to get a hearing about a segregationist station, and the FCC kept brushing them off. They sued, lost, sued again, and finally a judge took the unusual step of yanking the station's license — and ruled that citizens' groups should have the right to challenge license renewals. That ruling cracked the door open. Now the public regularly weighs in at licensing time.

P1: The closed-door FCC

The FCC was set up to listen to broadcasters, full stop. Ordinary viewers and listeners couldn't speak at hearings unless they were applying for a license themselves.

P2: The Jackson case

The United Church of Christ, on behalf of Jackson's Black residents, petitioned about a segregationist station. The FCC dodged: said the church lacked economic interest, granted a short probationary renewal, and (somewhat suspiciously) accepted the misconduct claims while still letting the station keep going. The author flags that the real motive was keeping citizens' groups out of the room.

P3: The courts force the issue

The church appealed, got a hearing, and lost again at the FCC. They appealed a second time. This time the judge skipped the FCC entirely, revoked the license, and ruled that citizens' groups have a right to challenge renewals.

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

The question
2.

The author mentions some additional topics now discussed at FCC hearings (last paragraph) primarily

Answer choices

  1. Correct92% picked this

    support the author's claim that the case helped to open up to the public the

    Why this is right

    The purpose of the last sentence of the last paragraph is to support the first sentence of the last paragraph.

    Skill tested: Local Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

  2. Wrong Purpose0% picked this

    suggest the level of vigilance that citizens' groups must maintain with

    The list is not a warning, but rather a set of examples that support the author’s conclusion.

  3. Outside Support Window3% picked this

    provide an explanation of why the public is allowed to question the performance of broadcasters on

    The court decision (fourth paragraph) explains why the public is allowed to question the performance of broadcasters.

  4. Unsupported3% picked this

    illustrate other areas of misconduct with which the station discussed in the

    The list of topics do not necessarily apply to the station discussed in the passage.

  5. Unsupported2% picked this

    demonstrate that the station discussed in the passage was not the only one to fall short of its

    The passage does not discuss stations other than the one in Jackson, Mississippi.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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