Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT145 S2 Q17 Explanation

The radio station claims that

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsMethod

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.

Stimulus

The radio station claims that its new format is popular with listeners because more than three-quarters of the listeners who call in requests to the station say they are pleased with the format. This, however, is hardly conclusive. It would be like trying to determine whether a political candidate who have already decided to vote for the candidate.

What this question is testing

Method

Your task

Describe how the argument proceeds — the technique it uses to reach its conclusion.

Common trap

Answers that describe a method the argument doesn't actually use.

Winning move

Track the role each statement plays, then match that to the choice describing the same moves.

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

The question
17.

The argument proceeds

Answer choices

  1. Bad Premise Match31% picked this

    concluding that an inference is flawed on the grounds that it is based on a survey conducted

    The author does conclude that an inference is flawed, but not because the survey is conducted by a biased party, rather because the survey is going off a self-selecting sample (people who still listen to the radio station after the format change).

  2. Correct62% picked this

    referring to an inference that is clearly flawed in order to undermine

    Why this is right

    The author refers to the clearly flawed inference of measuring a candidate's popularity by asking only their supporters, in order to undermine an analogous inference about measuring the popularity of a new radio format by asking only current listeners. The "clearly flawed" part of this answer probably gives a lot of us pause, but when people say "But this is dumb. This would be like saying X", they're implying that saying X is dumb.

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

  3. Out of Scope: more reasonable inference1% picked this

    questioning the legitimacy of an inference by proposing a more reasonable inference that could be

    The author does question the legitimacy of an inference, but she never proposes a more reasonable inference that could be made. She just shows by analogy why the the current inference is shady.

  4. Out of Scope4% picked this

    providing a direct counterexample to a conclusion in order to show that the

    Out of Scope: counterexample Too Strong: false The author only attempts to show that a conclusion is inconclusive, not false. And there is no counterexample (you need a general principle/claim in order to have a counterexample). The political example is an analogous example — another specific story with the same general principle (self-selecting sample) as the radio example.

  5. Too Strong: contradiction1% picked this

    claiming that an inference leads to a contradiction in order to show that the

    Nowhere in the argument does the author claim that anything leads to a contradiction.

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