Reading ComprehensionDifficulty: Hard

PT141 S1 P3 Q21 Explanation

Advertising Criticisms

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

TopicsAdd to the PassageSociety

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

Some critics of advertising have assumed that the creation of false needs in consumers is the principal mechanism underlying what these critics regard as its manipulative and hegemonic power. Central to this type of critique are the writings of political theorist Herbert Marcuse, who maintained that modern people succumb to oppression by to the genuine well-being of consumers, but rather to the profit—and thereby the disproportionate power—of corporations.

Marcuse supposed that we all have certain real needs, both physical and psychological. Advertising appropriates these needs for its own purposes, forging psychological associations between them and consumer items, e.g., between sex and perfume, thereby creating a false “need” for these items. Since the quest for fulfillment is thus displaced from its never really fulfilled and the consumer remains at some level unsatisfied.

Unfortunately, the distinction between real and false needs upon which this critique depends is extremely problematic. If Marcusians are right, we cannot, with any assurance, separate our real needs from the alleged false needs we feel as a result of the manipulation of advertisers. For, in order to do so, it would society that they have come to inform our instinctive judgments about things.

But, in fact, Marcusians make a major mistake in assuming that the majority of consumers who respond to advertising do not do so autonomously. Advertising techniques are unable to induce unwilling behavior in rational, informed adults, and regulations prohibit misinformation in advertising claims. Moreover, evidence suggests that most adults understand and recognize fulfillment, or even that its genuine fulfillment of needs must be less than the advertisement suggests.

What this question is testing

Add to the Passage

Your task

Pin down exactly what the question asks about the passage — a detail, the author's view, the structure, or the main point — before looking at the choices.

Common trap

Answers that restate a true detail from the passage but don't answer the specific question being asked.

Winning move

Anticipate the answer in your own words from the passage, then find the choice that matches that prediction.

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

The question
21.

Which one of the following sentences would most logically complete

Answer choices

  1. Correct51% picked this

    Therefore, while in principal there might be grounds for holding that advertising is detrimental to society, the Marcusian critique

    Why this is right

    This feels pretty safe! It does the whole "tie it back to the beginning move". It makes sense as the ending to a Challenge Position passage. They needed to make it feel weird so we didn't automatically love it, so they put in this weird "while there may be grounds for hating on advertising" clause. But that's just what a responsible rebuttal sounds like. If this author were to say, "Since the Marcusian critique is thus flawed, clearly there are no grounds for critiquing advertising", she would be committing the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw. She is hedging her wording here so indicate that all her passage has done is shoot down Marcuse's critique.

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

  2. Out of Scope3% picked this

    Therefore, although Marcusian claims about advertising are rationally justified, the mistake of many recent critics of advertising is in their use of

    Out of Scope: political gains Opposite: Marcusian claims justified Saying that Marcuse's claims are rationally justified is an example of backpedaling from / watering down the thesis. Our author wrote this passage to impugn the validity of Marcuse's claims, not affirm the validity. And there's nothing in the passage about using claims for political gains.

  3. Too Strong6% picked this

    Therefore, any shift in basic assumptions required to correct the abuses of advertising will require a change in the perception of human

    Too Strong: any shift requires Opposite: the abuses of advertising The author wrote this passage to challenge the position that advertising is abusing us. This answer makes it sound like she's accepting that notion. And we don't have any support for this strong claim that "shifts in assumptions will require change in perception by corporate leaders".

  4. Opens up New Topic: benefits13% picked this

    Therefore, while emphasizing only detrimental social aspects of advertising, Marcusians have failed to consider that such aspects are clearly

    This is the type of answer that would be starting a new paragraph, where the author then talks about the social benefits of advertising. Since she hasn't mentioned social benefits so far, it would be weird for her to bring up that idea without supporting it in her final sentence.

  5. Waters Down Thesis: mistaken except27% picked this

    Therefore, the Marcusian critique of advertising is mistaken except in its claim that advertisers exert economic power over those few people who are unable

    It seems plausible that the author would agree with this sentence, but that doesn't mean that she would end her passage with it. Part of our criteria here is just rhetorical purpose. Authors want their final sentence to provide closure / finality / a final summary judgment. This entire final paragraph has been building a case against the Marcusian critique. It's just too much of a backpedal to end with, "Thus, he's wrong (except for where he's right)".

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