Logical Reasoning

PT131 · S3 · Q10 Producer: It has been argued

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

Producer: It has been argued that, while the government should not censor television shows, the public should boycott the advertisers of shows that promote violence and erode our country's values.

Evidence

If the public boycotted PB → CA the advertisers, then they would cancel their advertisements.

Causing some shows to CA -causes→ GOA go off the air.

The result would be a GOA -causes→ R restriction of the shows that the public can watch.

Conclusion

A public boycott of the PB → C advertisers of shows that promote violence and erode our country’s values would be censorship.

Evaluate

The argument assumes R → C that whatever restricts the number of shows that can be watched is censorship.

10.

The producer's conclusion is properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. If there is neither government

    Too Weak

    This suggests by contrapositve that when there is a restriction of the television shows that the public can watch, that either there is government censorship or there is a public boycott of advertisers. Since this does not establish that there is government censorship, this answer is too weak.

    6% picked this

  2. Public boycotts could force some

    Supports a Premise

    This supports the premise that public boycotts could force some shows off the air, but does not advance the argument that doing so amounts to censorship.

    6% picked this

  3. For any television show that

    Weaken

    This suggests that maybe such shows would not necessarily go off the air.

    1% picked this

  4. There is widespread public agreement

    Supports a Premise

    This supports the premise that public boycotts would be effective at forcing some shows off the air. But that has already been established in the argument. The issue is whether forcing such shows off the air amounts to censorship.

    3% picked this

  5. Correct

    Any action that leads to

    Why this is right

    This bridges the gap R ? C between restricting what people can watch and censorship.

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

    84% 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