Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S2 · Q22 The writers of the television show Ambitions

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

The writers of the television show Ambitions could make their characters more realistic than they currently are, but they know their viewership would shrink if they did.

Evidence

If writers of A made If A does action X, characters more realistic, effect Y would viewership would shrink. happen

The writers will choose A does not want to maximize audience. effect Y

Conclusion

The characters will not Action X won't be made more realistic. happen

Evaluate

We could have included the very first idea (that the writers could make the characters more realistic), but that seemed like counterpoint fluff. It could be in the answer or not be there and it won't really affect the logic of how the conclusion is derived.

Goal

We're kind of looking for a contrapositive structure, but through the lens of an Action / Result.

X knows that Action A leads to B. X doesn't want B. So, X won't do A.

22.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

  1. If a company’s failure is

    Bad Premise / Conclusion Match

    This does have a conditional, but it's not a plan with an effect, so it's not very tempting to engage with this answer. A quick glance at the Conclusion also reveals that the Conclusion is the wrong strength (the original conclusion is sure of itself but this one is only "probably"). The argument doesn't try to argue through a contrapositive direction. Instead, it establishes part of the trigger and then concludes that the outcome is probably true. Original argument This argument X knows "A leads to B." A due to B → C X doesn't want B. B happened. So, X won't do A. So, probably C.

    9% picked this

  2. If a company’s failure is

    Invalid Logic

    This does have a conditional, but it's not a plan with an effect, so it's not very tempting to engage with this answer. The argument doesn't try to argue through a contrapositive direction. Instead, it establishes the trigger isn't true and then concludes that the outcome is probably true. Original argument This argument X knows "A leads to B." A due to B → ~C X doesn't want B. B didn't happen. So, X won't do A. So, C.

    12% picked this

  3. If ViqCo’s executives were responsible

    Only One Premise

    This does have a conditional, but that's it! There's no second premise, so there's no way this could be arguing via a contrapositive. The conclusion is the contrapositive (almost), but that's not the same thing as presenting a rule "A → B", presenting a fact that the outcome isn't happening "~B." and then concluding that the trigger won't happen "~A." Original argument This argument X knows "A leads to B." A due to B → ~C X doesn't want B. So, C → ~A* So, X won't do A. The conclusion isn't valid on this argument because the contrapositive would be "If you can't say what should have been done differently, then the execs weren't responsible for the failure", which is slightly different than "the execs shouldn't be blamed for the failure".

    14% picked this

  4. Correct

    If ViqCo’s executives were responsible

    Why this is right

    This argument also has a contrapositive structure. It's weirdly different from the original in the sense that it's not about a plan, its intended consequences, the knowledge of the people involved, etc. But in terms of how the author reaches her conclusion, it's similar: - there's a conditional - the right side ain't gonna happen - thus, the left side ain't gonna happen X knows "A leads to B." E responsible → VL > CL X doesn't want B. VL < CL. So, X won't do A. So, ~E responsible

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

    60% picked this

  5. Since ViqCo’s failure was due

    Bad Premise Match

    There's no conditional rule at all in these premises, so this one doesn't get off the ground.

    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