Q17 - Radio station new format

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
The author concludes that the radio station might not be as popular as it thinks. Why? Because of an analogy to politics, where a biased sample was used.

Answer Anticipation:
I love these arguments, where the author points out a classic flaw! In this case, the author points out that the radio station committed a Sampling flaw in its survey by using an analogy to a politician measuring their popularity by asking their supporters if they like them.

The correct answer will talk about analogies, sampling flaws, or a combination.

Correct Answer:
(B)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Tsk, tsk, LSAT! Good try. Definitely a tempting answer. However, the argument states that the sample was biased (who was asked), not that the person conducting the survey was biased (who asked the questions). This is definitely a strong trap answer, and so it might survive my first pass.

(B) I might not pick this on the first pass (since it doesn't mention the Sampling error), but it wouldn't be eliminated because it talks about an analogous situation. On a second read, I'd be comfortable selecting it because the "inference that is clearly flawed" refers to the Sampling flaw.

(C) There is no inference shown to be more reasonable. The author states only that the radio station's conclusion isn't certain, not that another conclusion would be more certain. Picking this answer would be akin to you committing an Unproven vs. Untrue flaw.

(D) Tempting. The LSAT loves to try to get you to use counter/example and analogy interchangeably. However, they are distinct terms. In this case, since the political example isn't about radio station popularity, it's an analogy. If the question brought up another radio station, it'd be a counterexample.

(E) There's no mention of a contradiction, or even any ideas brought up that are contradictory, so this answer is out of scope.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Analogies and examples are different - make sure you can distinguish! An example comes from the same world; an analogy comes from a similar world.

#officialexplanation

[layamaheshwari]

I found this question to be very tricky, and got it wrong during a timed PT. I think I now understand the correct answer, and shall try to explain why it is so.

Question type: Argument procedure

[A] The wrong answer choice that I selected, and which I believe would be correct if ONE word were changed. The survey being talked about in the stimulus is faulty, yes, but because it's performed on a biased party, not "by a biased party." Hence, eliminate.

[C] Once the argument questions the inference about the radio station format's popularity, it's pretty much done with that. No "more reasonable inferences" are made. Eliminate.

[D] "Direct counterexample"? The argument actually presents an analogy. Eliminate.

[E] "Leads to a contradiction"? The evidence doesn't lead to a paradox or something like that. It's just misrepresentative to begin with. Eliminate.

[b] CORRECT. The argument describes an analogous situation which you'd surely find ridiculous, and uses that as a support for why you should find the radio station's words ridiculous as well.

While taking the timed PT, I overthought things and struck it off because, according to the ordering of the stimulus paragraph, the conclusion "This is hardly conclusive" had already appeared. So, I convinced myself into thinking the analogous inference had been undermined before the political candidate analogy was referred to.

However, I now see I was wrong. If nothing else, process of elimination should get you to B.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Really nice explanation layamaheshwari!

I just wanted to comment on

[A] The wrong answer choice that I selected, and which I believe would be correct if ONE word were changed. The survey being talked about in the stimulus is faulty, yes, but because it's performed on a biased party, not "by a biased party." Hence, eliminate.

Yeah, I think your point is valid. If we changed it to "on a biased party," that's what happens. The analogy is that both groups are potentially biased samples of the whole. But then again, the author doesn't say that they are biased, just potentially biased - "hardly conclusive." So maybe changing just that one word might not be enough.

Hope that helps!

[ningnengxu]

it took me a while to understand the way lsac trying to express answer choice B, but its the right one.

[mmcnary]

I think I was thrown by the wording in answer choice D. Could you provide an example of what a counter example would be for reference? I was thinking it was an example that proves that somethings wrong but this is just displaying the same flawed test in another group.