LSAT 140 – Section 2 – Question 03

LSAT 140 - Section 2 - Question 03

December 2013

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:57

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
PT140 S2 Q03
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
A
77%
165
B
3%
154
C
18%
161
D
1%
155
E
2%
157
132
146
161
 +Medium 149.441 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

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

Humorous television advertisements are the only effective ones. For if something is humorous it will not only attract people’s attention, it will hold their attention long enough for a message to be conveyed. And, obviously, for an advertisement to be effective it must convey its message.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that humorous ads are the only effective ones. He supports this with the following premises:
(1) If something is humorous, it will attract people’s attention and allow a message to be conveyed.
(2) If an ad is effective, it must convey its message.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. We know effective ads convey a message (and so they also can convey a message) but the author then assumes that they must be humorous. In other words, he treats “humorous” as necessary for “can convey” when it’s really only sufficient.

He argues that if an ad is effective, it must be humorous, since humorous ads can convey a message. But what if other ads, like emotional ads, can also convey a message? In that case, humorous ads might not be the only effective ones.

A
It takes for granted that nothing but humor can attract a person’s attention and hold it long enough for a message to be conveyed.
The author treats “humorous” as necessary for “can convey,” when it’s really only sufficient. He assumes that only humor can convey a message. But if scary or sad ads can also hold attention long enough to convey a message, then funny ads might not be the only effective ones.
B
It confuses attracting a person’s attention with holding a person’s attention long enough for a message to be conveyed.
The author actually distinguishes between these ideas by saying that if something is humorous it will not only attract attention but it will also hold attention long enough for a message to be conveyed.
C
It treats a necessary condition for an advertisement’s being effective as if it were a sufficient condition.
The author treats a sufficient condition for “can convey” as if it were a necessary condition. His conclusion isn’t about what is sufficient for an ad’s being effective; it’s about what is necessary for an ad’s being effective.
D
It uses two senses of the term “effective” without differentiating them.
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the argument uses the same term in different ways. The author doesn't make this mistake; he uses “effective” clearly and consistently throughout his argument.
E
It takes for granted that an advertisement’s only purpose is to convey its message.
The author doesn’t assume this. In fact, he doesn’t make any claims about the purpose of ads at all. Instead, he assumes that humorous ads are the only effective ones, without considering that other kinds of ads might also be able to convey a message and be effective.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 140 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply