Logical Reasoning

PT155 · S1 · Q2 Although the audience for part one

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

Although the audience for part one of the television documentary Train Stories shown on Thursday night was small, the audience for part two on Friday night was not significantly smaller.

Conclusion (Thus)

Most of the viewers who watched TS on Thursday liked it enough to tune in again on Friday.

Evidence

The audience for TS on Thursday was small. The audience for TS on Friday was only slightly smaller.

Evaluate

You're telling me that a documentary about trains called Train Stories got low ratings?! Yeah, that tracks. [sorry, couldn't resist]

The author is looking at statistics and interpreting what they mean, so we could use our Explain Curious Fact mindset.

Why ... did Friday night have pretty much the same small-sized audience that Thursday had? Because .. most of the people who watched in on Thursday liked it enough to tune in again.

We could weaken this argument by providing an Alternate Explanation for the Thu / Fri audience, or by debunking the plausibility of the Author's Explanation.

Maybe the set of viewers on each night was totally different. 100,000 people came across it while channel flipping on Thursday night, and a different set of 100,000 people came across it while channel flipping on Friday night.

Maybe it was basically the same audience each night, but not because the people who saw it on Thurs liked it. Maybe they were forced to watch it (it was assigned to them by their train-enthusiast professor / they worked on the show / they had to write an online review of it).

Goal

Look for an answer ruling out an Alternate Explanation for why Friday had about as many viewers as Thursday, or look for an answer that is required for the Author's Explanation to be plausible (anything that would need to be true in order for the author to be correct in thinking that most of the 1st night's viewers enjoyed the show and tuned in again on Friday).

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?

Correct
Most of the viewers who
Why this is right
As written, we could say that this answer is necessary in order for the author's causal explanation to be plausible. The reason the 2nd night's audience was almost as big as the 1st could only be due to "most of the 1st night's audience liking what they saw" if most of them continued to watch during the 2nd night". Alternatively, we could see if the negation weakens. If we negate this and say, "Most of the people who watched it on the second night did not watch it the first night", then it sounds like Friday was mostly a new set of viewers. This suggests that there must be an Alternate Explanation for the Thu / Fri audience numbers, since the two audiences are mainly different people. (note: it is mathematically relevant that we know the 2nd night had a slightly smaller audience than the 1st night had. If more than 50% of Thursday night's audience had carried over to Friday, then those Thursday-watchers would be more than 50% of Friday's audience too, since Friday's audience was a slightly smaller total.) (other note: the word "most" is wrong on Necessary Assumption, 99% of the time we see it, but it's a totally acceptable word if the conclusion is talking about Most A's).
Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
96% picked this
Most of the viewers who
Out of Scope: 2nd night enjoyment
This argument is only committing to the idea that most viewers liked the program enough on the 1st night. Even if all the viewers hated it the 2nd night, it wouldn't affect the author's argument at all.
1% picked this
Most of the viewers who
Irrelevant Comparison
As discussed with (B), the argument only needs to assume that most people liked the first night enough to watch it one more time. It doesn't need to assume any comparison about which night these two-nighters preferred. It wouldn't make any difference whether they liked them the same, preferred night 1, or preferred night 2.
0% picked this
Many of the viewers who
Out of Scope: unable to watch
This is getting at the idea of "How come some people who tuned in for night 1 didn't tune in for night 2?" The author doesn't need to assume any causal backstory for why some people might have only seen night 1. It doesn't matter whether they were unable or whether they just didn't want to. Their reasons for not watching on night 2 have nothing to do with judging the conclusion.
1% picked this
Many of the viewers who
Out of Scope: like documentaries
The author doesn't need to assume that any of the first night's viewers generally like TV documentaries. Whether they generally do or generally don't, they could still like this one, and that's all the author is talking about.
1% 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