LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 25

December 17, 2015

It is likely that most of the new television programs Wilke & Wilke produce for this season will be canceled. Most of the new shows they produced last season were canceled due to insufficient viewership. Furthermore, their new shows are all police dramas, and few police dramas have been popular in recent years.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that most new Wilke & Wilke television shows this season will probably be canceled. The author supports this argument by observing that most of Wilke & Wilke’s new shows last season were canceled because of insufficient viewership. The author also asserts that Wilke & Wilke’s new shows are all police dramas, a type of show that has not been popular in recent years.

Notable Assumptions

The author assumes that viewership in the last season will probably be similar to viewership in the current season. The author also assumes that if few police dramas have been popular in recent years, then new police dramas will probably not be popular.

On top of this, the author assumes that viewership will be so low, and police dramas are so unpopular, that the new shows will be cancelled.

A
Wilke & Wilke have produced more new shows for this season than they produced last season.

The amount of new shows being produced in a season has no clear effect on whether most new shows in a season will be canceled, and is therefore irrelevant to the argument.

B
Most of the shows that Wilke & Wilke produced last year were police dramas.

This doesn’t strengthen the argument, because we still don’t know how Wilke & Wilke’s low viewership interacts with the unpopularity of police dramas. Maybe their police dramas were actually unusually popular, which is why they’re producing more!

C
None of the shows that Wilke & Wilke produced last year that were not canceled were police dramas.

This choice does not give us any information about the shows that are likely to be canceled; the fact that other kinds of shows were not canceled is irrelevant.

D
All of the new shows that Wilke & Wilke produced last year that were canceled were police dramas.

This strengthens by backing up the assumption that trends from last year will predict this year’s results. Now we have a direct analogy between the types of shows the author predicts will be canceled, and similar shows last season that were actually cancelled.

E
None of the most popular television shows last year were police dramas.

This does not add to the argument, as the author has already asserted that police dramas have not been popular recently.


29 comments

LSAT 76 - Section 2 - Question 24

December 17, 2015

1 comment

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 24

December 17, 2015

84 comments

LSAT 76 - Section 2 - Question 23

December 17, 2015

1 comment

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 23

December 17, 2015

Well-intentioned people sometimes attempt to resolve the marital problems of their friends. But these attempts are usually ineffectual and thereby foster resentment among all parties. Thus, even well-intentioned attempts to resolve the marital problems of friends are usually unjustified.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that people’s well-intentioned attempts to solve their friends’ marital problems are usually unjustified. In support, the author explains that these attempts usually don’t work, and instead just cause resentment.

Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that there’s a link between a well-intentioned attempt to solve a problem being ineffectual and causing resentment, and whether that attempt was justified.

A
One should get involved in other people’s problems only with the intention of producing the best overall consequences.
This is irrelevant, because the domain of the argument is already limited to well-intentioned attempts. This doesn’t tell us anything about why such an attempt could be unjustified.
B
Interpersonal relations should be conducted in accordance with doing whatever is right, regardless of the consequences.
This is irrelevant. The author never mentions what kinds of actions are “right,” only what’s “justified.” This doesn’t help us with justification at all.
C
Good intentions are the only legitimate grounds on which to attempt to resolve the marital problems of friends.
This still doesn’t help us with the element of justification, and so doesn’t strengthen the argument.
D
The intentions of an action are irrelevant to whether or not that action is justified.
This doesn’t strengthen because it still doesn’t tell us what contributes to an action being justified. Intentions are irrelevant, great, but we still don’t know how an action being ineffectual and causing resentment cause it to be unjustified.
E
No actions based on good intentions are justified unless they also result in success.
This affirms the author’s assumption that a well-intentioned action being ineffectual makes that action unjustified, and so strengthens the argument.

16 comments

LSAT 76 - Section 2 - Question 22

December 17, 2015

41 comments

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 22

December 17, 2015

A tax preparation company automatically adds the following disclaimer to every e-mail message sent to its clients: “Any tax advice in this e-mail should not be construed as advocating any violation of the provisions of the tax code.” The only purpose this disclaimer could serve is to provide legal protection for the company. But if the e-mail elsewhere suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection. So the disclaimer serves no purpose.

Summary
The author concludes that the e-mail disclaimer serves no purpose. This is based on the following:
The only purpose of the disclaimer is to provide legal protection for the company.
If the e-mail in which the disclaimer appears suggests that the client do something illegal, then the disclaimer offers no legal protection.

Missing Connection
We know that if the e-mail suggests that people do something illegal, the disclaimer won’t serve its purpose. But what if the e-mail does NOT suggest that people do something illegal? Couldn’t the disclaimer still serve a purpose in this situation? To make the argument valid, we want to establish that if the e-mail doesn’t suggest doing something illegal, the disclaimer still doesn’t serve the purpose of providing legal protection.

A
If the e-mail does not elsewhere suggest that the client do anything illegal, then the company does not need legal protection.
(E) provides the missing half of the argument. So whether the e-mail does or does not suggest to do something illegal, the e-mail doesn’t serve a purpose. Either the e-mail doesn’t offer legal protection, or the company doesn’t need legal protection.
B
If e-mail messages sent by the tax preparation company do elsewhere suggest that the recipient do something illegal, then the company could be subject to substantial penalties.
(B) doesn’t tell us what happens if the e-mail does not suggest that people should do something illegal. So we don’t know whether the disclaimer might be able to serve a purpose in that situation.
C
A disclaimer that is included in every e-mail message sent by a company will tend to be ignored by recipients who have already received many e-mails from that company.
(C) establishes that people might end up ignoring the disclaimer. But this doesn’t prove that the disclaimer serves no purpose when the e-mail doesn’t suggest doing something illegal. The disclaimer might still serve its purpose in that situation, even if there’s a potential people will ignore the disclaimer.
D
At least some of the recipients of the company’s e-mails will follow the advice contained in the body of at least some of the e-mails they receive.
This doesn’t establish that the disclaimer serves no purpose if the e-mail doesn’t suggest that clients do something illegal. We already know that the disclaimer serves no purpose if the e-mail suggests something illegal. What matters is what happens if the e-mail doesn’t suggest something illegal.
E
Some of the tax preparation company’s clients would try to illegally evade penalties if they knew how to do so.
This doesn’t establish that the disclaimer serves no purpose if the e-mail doesn’t suggest that clients do something illegal. We already know that the disclaimer serves no purpose if the e-mail suggests something illegal. What matters is what happens if the e-mail doesn’t suggest something illegal.

47 comments

LSAT 76 - Section 2 - Question 21

December 17, 2015

1 comment

LSAT 144 - Section 2 - Question 21

December 17, 2015

68 comments

LSAT 76 - Section 2 - Question 20

December 17, 2015

1 comment

«‹286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306›»