LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 05

June 1999

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

Target time: 1:16

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
PT106 S3 Q05	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR Value Judgment +ValJudg	A 0% 165 B 1% 159 C 97% 167 D 1% 156 E 0% 157	126 135 144	+Easier	148.198 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Jane: Television programs and movies that depict violence among teenagers are extremely popular. Given how influential these media are, we have good reason to believe that these depictions cause young people to engage in violent behavior. Hence, depictions of violence among teenagers should be prohibited from movies and television programs, if only in those programs and movies promoted to young audiences.

Maurice: But you are recommending nothing short of censorship! Besides which, your claim that television and movie depictions of violence cause violence is mistaken: violence among young people predates movies and television by centuries.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Maurice concludes that Jane is mistaken in claiming that violence in TV and movies causes violence in young people. He supports this by pointing out that violence in young people existed long before movies and TV.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Maurice’s premise doesn’t effectively support his conclusion. Just because violence in young people existed before violent media, doesn’t mean that that media can’t cause violence in young people today. Isn’t it possible that violent movies and TV shows cause violence in young people today, while something else caused it in the past?

It presupposes that an unpopular policy cannot possibly achieve its intended purpose.

Maurice never makes this assumption. In fact, neither Maurice nor Jane addresses the popularity of banning violence in movies and TV shows.

It confuses a subjective judgment of private moral permissibility with an objective description of social fact.

Maurice never confuses a subjective judgment with an objective description. He also never discusses “moral permissibility” at all. He just says that Jane is advocating for censorship.

It rules out something as a cause of a current phenomenon solely on the ground that the phenomenon used to occur without that thing.

This describes Maurice’s key flaw. He argues that violent TV shows and movies can’t cause violence among young people simply because violence among young people used to occur before movies and TV shows existed.

It cites purported historical facts that cannot possibly be verified.

Maurice cites the fact that “violence among young people predates movies and television by centuries.” This fact can certainly be verified.

It relies on an ambiguity in the term “violence” to justify a claim.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation,” where The author uses a term inconsistently. Maurice simply doesn’t do this. He uses the term “violence” consistently throughout his argument.

LSAT 106 – Section 3 – Question 05

LSAT 106 - Section 3 - Question 05

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

J.Y.’s explanation

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 106 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel