Q5 - In its coverage of a controversy regarding a proposal t

[samantha.rose.shulman]

PT65, S1, Q5 (Weaken)

(D) is correct.

This is an Assumption Family question, specifically a Weaken question. As always, we should start by finding the conclusion. This conclusion isn’t too difficult to find, since it appears at the end of the stimulus and includes "therefore" to guide us there: the television program is therefore biased against the new proposed freeway.

Next, it is time to find the support, or the premise(s), for this conclusion. We are told that a television news program covering a controversy regarding a new freeway proposal conducted interviews, and of the interviews shown, those with people "against" the new freeway outnumbered those with people "for" the freeway two to one. This gives us the following argument core:

Interviews Shown Were Two-One Against New Freeway -> Television Program Biased Against New Freeway

So, this argument concludes that the television program is biased against the new freeway because it included more interviews against the new freeway than for the new freeway. What are some of the gaps in this argument? The most noticeable gap may jump out at you immediately _ the television program interviews could have been representative of the population (those affected by the new freeway could be against it two to one). Additionally, what if the television program intended to focus on people against the new freeway, and had a different program meant to focus on the other side later? There are a multitude of gaps in almost any argument on the LSAT. Once you have found a few (or even just one) you should shift your focus to the answer choices.

Since this is a Weaken question, we want to find an answer choice that exposes one of the many gaps in the argument core. It may be one of the gaps we predicted, or it may be something we haven't considered. It is important to keep an open mind before looking at the answer choices. What we do know is that the correct answer will bring new (and sometimes unexpected) information to call into question the reasoning of the argument.

(A) is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether or not most of the people who watched the program were aware of the controversy beforehand. Is the television program biased are not?

(B) like A, is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if the viewers of television news programs expect those programs to be at least somewhat biased. Is the television program biased are not?

(C) is a premise booster. This could explain why the interviews shown were two-one against the new freeway, if we assume that emotional interviews are more likely to be shown. But even with that assumption, the question remains: is the television program biased or not? Eliminate!

(E) does the opposite of what we want. This strengthens the argument by making it seem like the television station has a motive to be biased against the freeway. This would strengthen the argument’s conclusion. We want to weaken it. These "opposite" answer choices are not only common, but also very attractive if you lose sight of your task.

That leaves (D), which is the assumption we identified earlier. If the population was actually two to one against the building of the freeway before the program aired, the television program is simply being representative, not biased.

[Djjustin818]

I still disagree.

I think C is right because it is providing an alternate explanation as to why they were shown 2:1. Maybe the television program wanted to display those interviews that expressed the most emotion. Then they are not biased.

I thought D was wrong because even if their were over twice as many people against it than in favor of it, the program can choose which ones to display or not. Just because their are more people to interview in favor of one side, doesn't mean they have to display twice as many.. Thus, it doesn't weaken the fact that they are biased. I thought it doesn't even affect the argument. Could someone please elaborate further?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey Djjustin818, I really like that you're looking at this one from the perspective of the conclusion offering an explanation for the phenomenon that the coverage was 2:1 against the new freeway. That's the perfect way to be thinking about the argument core.

And you're right, the correct answer should provide an alternative explanation for why the coverage was skewed 2:1 against the new freeway. That said, I don't believe that answer choice (C) does this, though answer choice (D) does.

(C) is out of scope. How does emotion packed interviews explain the the 2:1 margin against the new freeway. Emotion might convey intensity, but not the discrepancy.

(D) does provide an alternative explanation for why the coverage was 2:1 against the new freeway. It's not the bias of the news program, but rather the actual proportion of residents against the freeway that explains the negative news coverage.

I'd love to hear your thoughts though if you still see it differently.

[Djjustin818]

Hmm how can I avoid making this mistake in the future?

Because from the way I see it, I still think I would be making a bigger assumption to say that they displayed more people against the new freeway because their was more people against the freeway, than to say they displayed more people against the freeway because they expressed more emotions so the coverage would rather display that.

I'm not sure how much we can and can't infer in certain kinds of questions similar to this one and it's something i've been struggling with.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I still think I would be making a bigger assumption to say that they displayed more people against the new freeway because their was more people against the freeway, than to say they displayed more people against the freeway because they expressed more emotions so the coverage would rather display that.

Really? I'm just not sure that's realistic. If tv crews showed negative coverage because they were emotional, that assumes that tv crews prefer emotional responses to reasoned responses. Whereas, if tv crews showed showed negative coverage because more people viewed the project negatively, that doesn't rely on any further assumption about what the tv program preferred.

We don't want to infer anything, but we do want to use common sense about what makes for a reasonable alternative explanation, and what doesn't. The benchmark should be common sense.

Even if we use common sense to say that tv crews want emotional coverage because it makes for better tv, that supports the idea that they are biased--they skewed the coverage for their own gains. But a preponderance of residents opposing the new freeway undermines the idea that the tv program was trying to skew the coverage.

Hope that helps!