Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Easy

PT129 S4 P1 Q4 Explanation

The FCC and Public Interest

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

TopicsAuthor OpinionLaw

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.

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

Author Opinion

Anticipate

The passage is essentially a success story: a citizens' group used the courts to force a captured regulator to listen to the public. The author clearly approves. So the author would most agree with whatever statement captures that idea — courts as a working tool for public-interest protection.

Goal

Looking for an answer that captures: court action by citizens' groups can effectively protect public interests. Be wary of:

Sweeping cynicism the passage doesn't support (e.g., "government cannot be trusted")

Claims about business as inherently anti-public

Counterfactuals about what would have happened without the church's case

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

The question
4.

Based on information presented in the passage, with which one of the following statements would the author be

Answer choices

  1. Unsupported5% picked this

    If the United Church of Christ had not pursued its case, the FCC would not have been aware of

    The passage doesn't say the FCC was unaware of the station's policies before the church's petition. In fact, P2 notes that the FCC accepted the church's misconduct claims, suggesting the FCC could verify the facts on its own. The case was about standing and accountability, not initial discovery.

  2. Too Strong2% picked this

    By their very nature, industrial and business interests are opposed to

    The author criticizes the FCC's industry-only approach but never makes the sweeping claim that by their very nature business interests oppose public interests. The author's view is more specific: in this case, the FCC's structure systematically excluded the public, and a court ruling fixed that.

  3. Correct86% picked this

    The recourse of a citizens' group to the courts represents an effective means of

    Why this is right

    This is the headline takeaway of the passage. The church kept failing at the FCC; only when it went to court did it succeed. The court's ruling in turn created the precedent that has let citizens' groups raise issues at every renewal since (P4). So the author would clearly agree that recourse to the courts represents an effective means of protecting public interests.

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

  4. Too Strong4% picked this

    Governmental regulation cannot safeguard against individual businesses acting contrary to

    The passage describes regulatory failure in this case but doesn't conclude that government regulation in general can't safeguard against businesses. In fact, P4 shows the regulator now does hear from the public — improved regulation is exactly what the case produced.

  5. Too Strong3% picked this

    The government cannot be trusted to favor the rights of the public over

    The passage criticizes the FCC's early posture but doesn't conclude that government can't be trusted to balance public versus broadcaster interests. The successful precedent in P4 shows the system can correct itself. The author's view is critical of one chapter, not cynical about government as a whole.

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