Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT3 S4 Q5 Explanation

The high cost of production

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

TopicsWeaken

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.

Stimulus

The high cost of production is severely limiting which operas are available to the public. These costs necessitate reliance on large corporate sponsors, who in return demand that only the most famous operas be produced. Determining which operas will be produced should rest only with ticket purchasers at the box office, not from individuals, then the public will be able to see less famous operas.

What this question is testing

Weaken

Conclusion

The author wants to ditch the big corporate sponsors so opera companies can produce more obscure operas.

Evidence

The corporate sponsors are the ones forcing only-the-greatest-hits programming.

Evaluate

The author treats corporate demands as the only thing standing in the way of obscure operas. But there is a quieter possibility: famous operas might be the only ones that bring in enough ticket sales and donations to pay for themselves. If that's true, cutting the corporate money doesn't free smaller operas — it just shrinks the budget so much that only famous operas remain affordable.

Goal

The right answer will show that without corporate sponsors, opera companies still couldn't afford to produce anything beyond the famous operas.

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

The question
5.

Which one of the following, if true, would weaken

Answer choices

  1. No Impact3% picked this

    A few opera ticket purchasers go to the opera for the sake of going to the opera, not

    Whether some ticket-buyers attend for the experience rather than for specific productions doesn't bear on whether opera companies could afford to produce less famous operas under the new funding model. The author's claim is about which operas can be produced, not why audiences attend.

  2. No Impact9% picked this

    The reduction of opera production budgets would not reduce the desire of large corporate sponsors

    The argument is about what happens after reducing production budgets to a level supportable by box-office plus donations. Whether sponsors remain willing to support operas at the higher budget level doesn't affect whether the smaller budget supports less famous operas.

  3. Correct73% picked this

    Without the support of large corporate sponsors, opera companies could not afford to produce any but the

    Why this is right

    This is the alternative explanation the author missed. If, without corporate sponsors, opera companies could only afford to produce the most famous operas anyway, then cutting the sponsors doesn't free up less famous operas — it just shrinks the budget while keeping the same lineup. The whole point of the plan was to expose audiences to less famous operas, and this answer says that won't happen. The conclusion is undermined.

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

  4. No Impact0% picked this

    Large corporate sponsors will stop supporting opera productions if they are denied control over which

    This is consistent with the plan, not against it. The author is already proposing to do without corporate sponsors. That sponsors will withdraw if denied control is exactly the situation the author is willing to accept. It does not undermine the conclusion that less-famous operas will then be produced.

  5. No Impact14% picked this

    The combination of individual donations and box-office receipts cannot match the amounts of money obtained through

    The plan already involves reducing production budgets so they fit what box-office and donations can support. Whether donations and box-office can match corporate funding is irrelevant — the author isn't claiming they will; the author is saying budgets will shrink to match. The conclusion is unaffected.

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