Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S3 · Q16 Evidently, watching too much

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

Evidently, watching too much television can lead people to overestimate the risks that the world poses to them.

Conclusion

Watching too much TV can lead people to overestimate the risks that the world poses.

Evidence

Recent study showed a correlation (people who are X are more likely to be Y) between "thinking you'll be victims of a natural disaster" and "watching an above average amount of TV".

Evaluate

Whenever we see correlation language or whenever we feel the author is interpreting the results of a study, we can use our Curious Fact / Explanation template.

Curious Fact Why is there a correlation between watching lots of TV and fearing you'll be victims of a natural disaster?

Author's Story Watching lots of TV leads you to overestimate the risks the world poses (so you over-panic about your likelihood of being killed in a natural disaster).

The two pressure points for these arguments: - how ELSE could we explain that curious fact? - how plausible is the author's explanation?

Since this is Weaken, we want to either 1. Suggest an alternate explanation for why there's a correlation between "lots of TV" and "fear natural disasters" or 2. Hurt the plausibility of the storyline that watching too much TV causes you to overestimate the risks the world poses.

A #1 style answer might give us the classic Alternate Explanation for Correlation forms such as

Reverse Causality - People who know that natural disasters are coming to their area tend to watch more TV, to get updates about what to do, how to prepare, when to evacuate.

Third Factor - People who live in Los Angeles are both threatened by earthquakes and wildfires (explaining the fear of natural disaster) and working in the entertainment industry (explaining the high level of TV watching).

A #2 style answer could say something like,

Goal

Because it's weaken, we should primarily look for a different way to explain the correlation between "fear of natural disasters" and "watching lots of tv", but we can also stay receptive to answers that hurt the plausibility that .

16.

Which one of the following, if true, most weakens the reasoning above?

  1. Many people overestimate the dangers

    No Impact

    The author wasn't ever claiming that only people who watch a lot of TV end up overestimating the danger of the world. The fact that "some people who have never smoked cigarettes don't get lung cancer" does not weaken the idea that "smoking cigarettes can lead to lung cancer".

    18% picked this

  2. A person is less likely

    Strengthens

    This helps the author's point --- the people watching lots of TV are actually at lower-than-average risk of being harmed by a natural disaster, and yet they fear being a natural disaster victim more than others? This suggests that they are indeed overestimating the danger the world poses.

    2% picked this

  3. People who watch a below-average

    Strengthens

    This reinforces the author's supposed causal connection between "watch too much TV —c→ overestimate danger of world", by giving us a No Cause, No Effect strengthener: The people who watch little TV end up having an accurate (non-overestimated) sense of danger.

    2% picked this

  4. People who are well informed

    Strengthens, if anything

    This reinforces the idea that TV is a bad source of getting a good perception about the dangers of the world. It says that people who are well-informed about risks are not getting that from watching TV.

    4% picked this

  5. Correct

    A person is more likely

    Why this is right

    This answer gives us the Third Factor alternate explanation for the correlation. The evidence correlated these two things: watch lots of tv || fear natural disasters The author then concluded that "watching lots of TV" was a cause of "fearing natural disasters". This answer adds something to that correlation: watch lots of tv || fear natural disasters + live in natural disaster zone Common sense would tell us that it's more likely that the fear of natural disasters is coming from "living in an area prone to natural disasters" than that it's coming from watching lots of TV. Since this answer provides an alternative explanation for the correlation (they're not afraid of natural disasters because watching TV inflates their sense of risk, but because they live in an area that's more prone to natural disasters), it weakens the argument. It also suggests that the people who are more afraid of natural disasters are not actually over-estimating their risk. They are more at risk.

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

    74% 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