LSAT 118 – Section 4 – Question 24

LSAT 118 - Section 4 - Question 24

December 2004

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

Target time: 1:29

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
PT118 S4 Q24	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Causal Reasoning +CausR Lack of Support v. False Conclusion +LSvFC	A 6% 159 B 19% 162 C 4% 157 D 64% 167 E 7% 161	150 159 169	+Harder	147.106 +SubsectionMedium

Bardis: Extensive research shows that television advertisements affect the buying habits of consumers. Some people conclude from this that violent television imagery sometimes causes violent behavior. But the effectiveness of television advertisements could be a result of those televised images being specifically designed to alter buying habits, whereas television violence is not designed to cause violent behavior. Hence we can safely conclude that violent television imagery does not cause violence.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position

Bardis concludes that television does not cause people to be violent. He supports this by drawing a distinction between shows with violent imagery and commercials, saying that commercials are intended to persuade people to buy a product whereas violent shows are not intended to persuade anyone to be violent.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Bardis’s reasoning is flawed because he only attempts to refute one point made by the opposing side without offering any actual support for his own conclusion. He challenges the claim that violence on TV is analogous to commercials, arguing that they’re not comparable. However, even if he’s successfully refuted that point, he still hasn’t actually answered the question: does violent imagery on TV lead to violence or not? There’s no support for his claim that it doesn’t.

relies on an illegitimate inference from the fact that advertisements can change behavior to the claim that advertisements can cause violent behavior

Bardis never claims that advertisements can cause violent behavior. His conclusion is that violent imagery on TV does not cause violent behavior.

fails to distinguish a type of behavior from a type of stimulus that may or may not affect behavior

Bardis does in fact distinguish between a type of behavior (violence) and a type of stimulus (violent imagery) since his conclusion is that televised violent imagery does not cause violence.

undermines its own position by questioning the persuasive power of television advertising

Bardis does not question the persuasive power of advertising. He acknowledges that commercials cause certain behaviors, but distinguishes those commercials from media with violent imagery.

concludes that a claim is false on the basis of one purported fault in an argument in favor of that claim

This describes how Bardis responds to an argument that compares commercials to violent media, but offers no support for his claim that there’s no causal relationship between violent imagery and violent behavior.

fails to consider the possibility that the argument it disputes is intended to address a separate issue

The argument addressed by Bardis claims that violent imagery sometimes causes violent behavior, so it’s concerned with the same issue. Regardless, the problem is that there’s no support for Bardis’s conclusion that violent imagery does not cause violence.

LSAT 118 – Section 4 – Question 24

LSAT 118 - Section 4 - Question 24

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 118 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel