LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 10

December 2009

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:07

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT131 S3 Q10	+LR	Sufficient assumption +SA Link Assumption +LinkA	A 2% 151 B 2% 153 C 1% 156 D 3% 158 E 92% 165	136 143 151	+Medium	146.026 +SubsectionMedium

Producer: It has been argued that, while the government should not censor television shows, the public should boycott the advertisers of shows that promote violence and erode our country’s values. But this would be censorship nonetheless, for if the public boycotted the advertisers, then they would cancel their advertisements, causing some shows to go off the air; the result would be a restriction of the shows that the public can watch.

Summary

The producer concludes that boycotting advertisers is censorship. Why? Because boycotting will cause a chain of events resulting in a restriction of shows available to the public.

Missing Connection

The conclusion is that boycotting advertisers counts as censorship, but we don’t know anything about what qualifies as censorship. For the premises to lead to the conclusion, we need to know that the ultimate result of the boycott (restriction of shows) constitutes censorship.

If there is neither government censorship nor boycotting of advertisers, there will be no restriction of the television shows that the public can watch.

This supports a conclusion about there being no restriction, and we need to support a conclusion that boycotting = censorship. The contrapositive of (A) supports a conclusion that there is either censorship or boycotting, but we don’t know which.

Public boycotts could force some shows off the air even though the shows neither promote violence nor erode values.

This is a statement about the possible reach of public boycotts. But which shows are forced off the air doesn’t change whether boycotting qualifies as censorship or not.

For any television show that promotes violence and erodes values, there will be an audience.

Having an audience is not synonymous with public access. The shows that are forced off the air may still have an audience, but public access to them has been restricted, and we need to know that this is enough to be considered censorship.

There is widespread public agreement about which television shows promote violence and erode values.

Public agreement about which advertisers to boycott does not guarantee that boycotting qualifies as censorship.

Any action that leads to a restriction of what the public can view is censorship.

This gives us a link from a known effect of boycotting (restriction of public access) to our conclusion. (E) guarantees that boycotting is considered censorship.

LSAT 131 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 131 - Section 3 - Question 10

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 131 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel