Q20 - The people most likely to watch

[bnuvincent]

Hello ,

Can't figure out why B is right, you know, both A and D seems to have its own merit.

BTW, is it because B addresses the people outside of the scope of the stimulus that it is right, you know, in the stimulus, we are told why the people most likely to watch a televised debate between political candidates will not be influenced by the debate.

Can you explain?

Thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This is a tough one. They're really pushing us to keep track of various groups.

The evidence consists of the following:

People most likely to watch a debate are already committed.
Those who did watch but were undecided couldn't tell who won.


Conclusion reached:

Winning a debate doesn't do a candidate much good.


The argument seems okay, but it failed to talk about the possible effects of winning a debate on people who did not watch the debate. Notice that both pieces of evidence are about viewers of the debate. None of the evidence is about people who did not watch the debate. Suppose winning the debate strongly influences non-viewers, then winning a debate could make a big difference. Answer choice (B) best references this possibility.

(A) does not lead to an advantage for winning. The undecideds could not tell who won, so wouldn't be swayed in either direction. The others who watched were already committed to their candidates.
(B) addresses a possibility that the argument failed to consider. The evidence deals strictly with viewers. The conclusion is about voters. There are many voters who were not viewers. If these people were swayed by reports of a debate, then winning the debate would convince these people.
(C) is irrelevant. The arguments conclusion is about a victory's effect, not what constitutes a victory.
(D) is weakened by the fact that it states that watching the comments may influence behavior. Will it? (D) may actually support the conclusion that no benefit would be attained. If the benefits are unpredictable, it's tough to say that winning a debate leads to benefits, it might, as the argument suggests, have no effect.
(E) is irrelevant. The argument is about the benefits of winning a debate, not about the drawbacks associated with losing a debate.

[bnuvincent]

oh yeah, now I get it, Thx again

[noah]

A student of mine raised a good question, so I figured I'd post it here:

So I went home and realized that I totally forgot to mention my main objection to B being a better answer choice than D. The conclusion states that "winning a televised debate does little to bolster one's chances of winning an election". (B) says, "the voting behavior of people who do not watch a televised debate is influenced by reports about the debate". I do not like this answer choice because it does not indicate the direction. Those who do not watch are influenced how?? Since we are looking to weaken the argument wouldn't the answer have to say that the viewers were positively influenced by reports about the debate's winner?? Simply that those who did not witness the debate were influenced does not necessarily weaken the argument that "winning a televised debate does little to bolster one's chances of winning an election" unless we assume that those reports (referenced in (B)) are consistent and that those who read them had a positive reaction towards the winner.

This is the same shortcoming that (D) has. However, (D) does something that (B) does not. But first the shortcoming: "people's voting behavior may be influenced in unpredictable ways by comments made by the participants in a televised debate" is unspecific. We do not know that this will weaken the argument any more than that it will strengthen it. However what the argument predicts or states is that people who watch debates are likely to have their minds made up. It is a supporting premise that "the people most likely to watch a televised debate between political candidates are the most committed members of the electorate and thus most likely to have already made up their minds about whom to support." But what if they behaved in unpredictable ways? Maybe I won the debate but alienated a considerable portion of my electorate because I made an off color remark of some sort. I fail to see how this is not a possibility that is viable under D considering the content of the stimulus. (D) actually does expose the author's assumption that the system is predictable. At least what (D) says attacks the argument for assuming that the "likehoods" it references will not necessarily hold.

Maybe the answer to my question is in the question itself. That the the argument is most vulnerable to criticism in (B) as opposed to (D). But I do not see, logically, how B attacks any more important or more numerous assumptions than D since B only tells me that others were influenced.

I hope that this makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to help me with this one.

[noah]

So, now I'll try to answer that

So I went home and realized that I totally forgot to mention my main objection to B being a better answer choice than D. The conclusion states that "winning a televised debate does little to bolster one's chances of winning an election". (B) says, "the voting behavior of people who do not watch a televised debate is influenced by reports about the debate". I do not like this answer choice because it does not indicate the direction. Those who do not watch are influenced how?? Since we are looking to weaken the argument wouldn't the answer have to say that the viewers were positively influenced by reports about the debate's winner?? Simply that those who did not witness the debate were influenced does not necessarily weaken the argument that "winning a televised debate does little to bolster one's chances of winning an election" unless we assume that those reports (referenced in (B)) are consistent and that those who read them had a positive reaction towards the winner.

Good point - (B) is not ideal. But, we should shy away from thinking "shouldn't the right answer..." since we're looking for the best answer. But, (B) is pretty good as an answer - it opens up the possibility of a debate leading to bolstering a politician's chances.

This is the same shortcoming that (D) has. However, (D) does something that (B) does not. But first the shortcoming: "people's voting behavior may be influenced in unpredictable ways by comments made by the participants in a televised debate" is unspecific. We do not know that this will weaken the argument any more than that it will strengthen it.

True.

However what the argument predicts or states is that people who watch debates are likely to have their minds made up. It is a supporting premise that "the people most likely to watch a televised debate between political candidates are the most committed members of the electorate and thus most likely to have already made up their minds about whom to support." But what if they behaved in unpredictable ways?

Here you're turning (D) into something that would call into question the premise. There are times when the LSAT does this, but in the overwhelming majority of LSAT weaken questions, it's the assumption, the connection between the premise and conclusion that is called into question. Furthermore, we're not told that viewers would change their behavior, just people. So perhaps it's the non-viewers. Yes, perhaps these folks will therefore vote for the winner because of these comments, but there are still two more problems. One, these comments may influence them - maybe they won't. Secondly, the argument is about winning a debate, not about comments made during a debate. (D) states that folks will be influenced.

Maybe I won the debate but alienated a considerable portion of my electorate because I made an off color remark of some sort. I fail to see how this is not a possibility that is viable under D considering the content of the stimulus. (D) actually does expose the author's assumption that the system is predictable. At least what (D) says attacks the argument for assuming that the "likehoods" it references will not necessarily hold.

But it doesn't necessarily attack them. Perhaps (D) is talking about non-viewers.

Maybe the answer to my question is in the question itself. That the the argument is most vulnerable to criticism in (B) as opposed to (D). But I do not see, logically, how B attacks any more important or more numerous assumptions than D since B only tells me that others were influenced.

So, to summarize, (B) is a better answer than (D) because:
1. It refers to reports about debates, reports which could include who won, while (B) refers to comments made during a debate.
2. It is emphatic that these reports will influence behavior, not that it may.
3. It does not suggest the influence is unpredictable. If it's predictable, then we now could study the influence and find out if it supports the idea that winning a debate helps a politician's chances. If the effect of something were unpredictable, then how can we use the phenomenon to draw or evaluate any conclusion?

Does that clear it up? Great questions, BTW - this is exactly the sort of deep digging you want to be doing.

I hope that this makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to help me with this one.

[farhadshekib]

Another thing I noticed - and may be I am wrong, but you guys can help me out - is that the premises DO NOT use absolute language.

P1: "People most likely to watch televised debates...[are] MOST LIKELY to have already made up their minds about whom to support".

P2: "uncommitted voters are GENERALLY undecided about who won the debate".

Neither premise states that people who watch televised debates will vote.

Keep in mind that attitude does not necessarily imply action.

So, (D) can actually be consistent with the argument.

P1 leaves open the possibility that people who watch televised debates (if they are the same people D is referring to, that is) may be influenced in unpredictable ways by comments made by the participants in a televised debate.

For instance, the people in P1 may be leaning towards a certain candidate; however, after watching the debate, they could be so turned off by that candidate that they refuse to vote in the election.

Similarly, in P2, undecided voters may be influenced in unpredictable ways. In fact, they may be so turned off by the debate that they choose not to vote in the election.

Thus, (D) could actually be consistent with the argument that "winning a televised debate does little to bolster one's chances of winning an election".

Thoughts?

[timmydoeslsat]

I see that this topic about this question has been around for some time.

I bring a fresh perspective to this question.

I just did this question and picked B.

My thoughts were exactly as people stated above. I thought what about the people who did not watch the debate. As we know in real life, is a majority of people. This is a big chunk of people.

For the argument to not even include them in the discussion about what happens to them and the concept of debates, yet concluding about how winning a debate does little to bolster chances of winning an election...this is a big flaw. It is assuming that those people, that potentially large block of people, have no impact with debates.


The reason I eliminated D is that I believe the argument's premises allow for the absorption of what D says. The premises say that "most likely"..."generally", etc.

This allows for something that may happen as D suggests.

[noah]

Neither premise states that people who watch televised debates will vote.

Keep in mind that attitude does not necessarily imply action.

Good point! But, the argument doesn't conclude with voting either - and the use of "support" in the first premise covers us there, and the second premise refers to "voters".

Thus, (D) could actually be consistent with the argument that "winning a televised debate does little to bolster one's chances of winning an election".

Thoughts?

And, I think you might have lost sight of our job on this questions - we're looking for a flaw, not something that is consistent (though perhaps you're using "consistent" to mean it'll work as the answer). Just because (D) might happen doesn't mean it's a flaw. And, as timmydoeslsat above points out, the premises leave room for there being some unexpected reactions.

[patrice.antoine]

Just did this question and chose (B) by process of elimination.

I was able to eliminate (D) on the basis of how weak it is. "Just because it can does not mean that it will" is my train of thought for this question. Sure, voters MAY be influenced but that doesn't mean that they WILL be influenced, thus weaking the argument we are presented.

As for (B), I know for weaken questions we can introduce outside information (people who do not watch the debate). It's not perfect but it does present the possibility that if those who do not watch the debate ARE 100% influenced by reports ("IS influenced" guarantees such certainty), its not a far-fetched idea to conclude those who do watch the debate can also be influenced by similar reports.

[noah]

I like your analysis, Noah. But b and d are messed up in the summary

Thanks! Fixed.

[Amir.m.shoar]

I've got a grudge with answer choice (A). If a debate makes people more likely to vote in an election, doesn't it then bolster one's chance of winning an election? Even if the uncommitted people couldn't tell who won, if they're more likely to vote after seeing that debate, aren't the debaters chances of winning the election bolstered?

[noah]

I've got a grudge with answer choice (A). If a debate makes people more likely to vote in an election, doesn't it then bolster one's chance of winning an election? Even if the uncommitted people couldn't tell who won, if they're more likely to vote after seeing that debate, aren't the debaters chances of winning the election bolstered?

Here's what Matt said about this:

(A) does not lead to an advantage for winning. The undecideds could not tell who won, so wouldn't be swayed in either direction. The others who watched were already committed to their candidates.

I agree with him. If the folks supporting you will continue supporting you and those supporting your opponent will support her, and the undecided folks are just as likely to vote for your opponent, how does getting more folks jazzed to vote help anyone specifically?

[coco.wu1993]

Still have some doubts about A. It's true that the most committed members have already decided who to support, but does it mean they will definitely vote for the one they support? Not really. It's similar to a flaw frequently appeared in LSAT questions: people who favor a candidate in a poll do not necessarily vote for him/her in the election.

I think A attacks the argument by showing that watching the debate may encourage committed members to take actions.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Interesting question, coco.wu1993!

I think that you raise an excellent point that even committed/decided voters may not actually vote! A debate may well make those already-decided voters more likely to actually get to the polls.

However, there are still two primary problems remaining with (A) as an answer, even given this totally valid concern.

First, if the debate makes your own people more likely to vote, wouldn't it do the same for your opponent? So, who will benefit more from the 'debate-bump'? Even if it affects both sides in exactly the same way (say, by giving a 10% boost), that's awesome for the candidate with the larger pool of committed voters, but not so awesome for the other side!

Now, if (A) had said "watching their own chosen candidate win a debate makes people more likely to vote", then I think your point would be extremely applicable. In that situation, the bump would only apply to the winner of the debate, instead of being just an across-the-board bump.

Second, this answer is specifically about watching "an exciting debate". Do we know that debates where you win are "exciting"? Maybe the only "exciting" debates are the ones declared ties! If that were true, then winning a debate still isn't likely to do much for you.

I want to commend you on some excellent thinking in getting to the realization that another valid in this argument is a failure to consider how the debate might energize the already-decided voters to actually vote. The LSAT writers could have gone for that as an answer choice - it's just that (A) doesn't quite do that job for us.

Does that help clear things up a bit?

[coco.wu1993]

Now, if (A) had said "watching their own chosen candidate win a debate makes people more likely to vote", then I think your point would be extremely applicable. In that situation, the bump would only apply to the winner of the debate, instead of being just an across-the-board bump.

Second, this answer is specifically about watching "an exciting debate". Do we know that debates where you win are "exciting"? Maybe the only "exciting" debates are the ones declared ties! If that were true, then winning a debate still isn't likely to do much for you.

This makes perfect sense. Thanks a lot, Christine!

[graftedinspiration]

Another fresh perspective on why B is right and D is wrong (from a true Brooklyn LSATer):

B--"Reports about" sounds more to me about WHO WON/LOST the debate (which is what the conclusion talks about-- "WINNING a televised debate...").

D--"comments made" sounds more like something which concerns the SUBSTANCE of the debate, the details, i.e. NOT SIMPLY WIN/LOSS.

Thus, B addresses how win/loss of debate affects chances of winning, while D gets lost in content of debate and "comments" about that content, which could go on ad nauseum, missing the central issue of win/loss.