Logical Reasoning

PT135 · S1 · Q5 In its coverage of a controversy

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

In its coverage of a controversy regarding a proposal to build a new freeway, a television news program showed interviews with several people who would be affected by the proposed freeway.

Conclusion (therefore)

The TV program is biased against the proposed freeway.

Evidence

Of the interviews shown on the program, those conducted with people against the new freeway outnumbered those conducted with people in favor of the freeway by a 2 to 1 ratio.

Evaluate

We have a Curious Comparison: - why were there twice as many interviews with people who oppose the new freeway as there were with people who favor the new freeway?

The conclusion reveals the Author's Explanation: - The TV program is biased against the proposed freeway (so they chose to try to influence public opinion by presenting more interviews with people opposed, hoping it would sway opinion)

As always, when an author's argument is trying to Explain a Curious Fact, we think through two different issues: 1. could there be some Alternate Explanation for the Curious Fact? 2. how plausible is the Author's Explanation?

Goal

Since this is weaken, we would either want an answer choice that suggests an Alternate Explanation for why twice as many opposing interviews as endorsing interviews were shown (like maybe there were just twice as many people in the sample they interviewed who opposed it),

or one that undermines the plausibility that this TV station is biased against this proposed freeway and purposefully put on a skewed ratio of interviews, thinking that might help shape public opinion against the freeway.

5.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

  1. Most of the people who

    No Impact

    We don't really care about the awareness of the audience. We just want an alternate explanation for the 2:1 ratio of haters to lovers, or we want to debunk this storyline that the TV program is biased against the freeway and therefore is presenting a biased anti-freeway ratio.

    3% picked this

  2. Most viewers of television news

    No Impact

    We don't really care about the expectations of the audience. We just want an alternate explanation for the 2:1 ratio of haters to lovers, or we want to debunk this storyline that the TV program is biased against the freeway and therefore is presenting a biased anti-freeway ratio. If this answer had said, "Most viewers demand their programs to be completely free of bias" that would slightly weaken the argument. It would make it seem less plausible that the TV program would risk presenting biased interviews, for fear that if their audience discovered this bias, the audience would be furious and stop watching this show.

    3% picked this

  3. In the interviews, the people

    Unclear Impact

    We don't really know how to judge the impact of more emotional expression of opinion. We might think, "if the people against the freeway were more emotional, then they were sincere opinions, not opinions the TV show pressured these people into having based on the show's bias". But that would be a big stretch. It's very easy to express a bogus opinion with a lot of emotion (consider how politicians in Congress speak). There's no common sense link between how much emotion you used to express your opinion and how sincere that opinion was.

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    Before the program aired, over

    Why this is right

    This presents an Alternate Explanation for the Curious Fact. There wasn't a 2:1 ratio of haters vs. lovers because the TV show are themselves haters and wanted to present a skewed picture. It looks like 2:1 is the correct picture of public sentiment. So, unbiased reporting would reflect this 2:1 divide. As an upside-down analogy, we know that 98% of climate scientists believe in dire, man-made global warming. 98% vs. 2% is a 49:1 ratio. If a TV show was covering climate change and interviewed three scientists who believe in climate change and three scientists who are climate skeptics, that would actually be biased reporting. It would sent the wrong message to the viewing audience that the scientific community is evenly divided. Having 49 scientists tell you climate change is real and 1 scientist telling you it's a hoax would be unbiased reporting.

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

    86% picked this

  5. The business interest of the

    Strengthens

    This actually increases the plausibility of the Author's Explanation, by assigning a backstory / motive / incentive for why the TV program would be biased against the proposed freeway.

    5% 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