Q6 - The public interest comprises many

[ebrickm2]

I found myself begrudgingly spending way too much time on this question than I would have liked too, and as a added bonus I choose C, an incorrect answer!

The reasoning behind it was that public interest needs to be considered, because it compromises many interests and must serve all of them. Considering only one aspect of it, say those that like action shows, would result in a problem, but a broader concern with public interest could help to negate this problem. To say the least, I was disappointed when I saw that this was the wrong choice.

I know I should probably give them some flexibility with the term "popularity", but it seems like something can be popular with 5% of the market, and that this could be a segment that is represented by the broadcaster's.

As I read it now, I see that C has the word "should" in it. This seems a bit prescriptive, but I wonder whether or not it is warranted because the first sentence states that something "must" be the case.

tl;dr, why is A right, why is C wrong?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I also thought initially that the prescriptive nature of answer choice (C) might be the reason to eliminate it, but then I reflected a bit more on the "must" in the first sentence and thought that maybe the prescriptive nature of answer choice (C) is okay.

The bigger problem with answer choice (C) is that it doesn't stay close enough to the information in the stimulus. We're looking to complete the argument, not extrapolate beyond the information in the argument. While answer choice (C) is something that is probably true given the information in the stimulus, it isn't what the stimulus is attempting to lead to.

Nowhere in the stimulus does it talk about television producers and what shows they should decide to produce. Instead, the stimulus is about broadcasters and what shows they decide to put on the air - better reflected in answer choice (A). We know that broadcasters must serve all of the many interests of the public. If they don't, then they are not satisfying their obligations as answer choice (A) suggests.

(B) is too specific. We don't know what networks are currently broadcasting.
(C) discusses producers rather than broadcasters.
(D) is irrelevant.
(E) is too limiting. Take out the word "only" and the answer choice might have a chance of being correct.

Does that help clear this one up? Let me know if you still need help with this one!

[adarsh.murthy]

Other problem with E is the word mostly. The stimulus says canstantly. If wwe assume LSAT to be particular about wording(which I think is the case), mostly is not the same as constantly. What do you think?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I totally agree that the LSAT is very particular with wording, but here's what I've learned over the years. In the early part of the LR section, give them flexibility with language. If you don't, you may not be content with the correct answer. Later in the section start to be more demanding on the precise meaning of language.

Otherwise, great point adarsh.murthy!

[curvedhyperbole]

I don't understand the point about constant/mostly in AC E. Can someone please explain this?

To verify, E could be correct if conditional were reversed, right?

[patrice.antoine]

I don't understand the point about constant/mostly in AC E. Can someone please explain this?

To verify, E could be correct if conditional were reversed, right?

What others were pointing out is that we cannot synonymize "constant" in the stimulus with "mostly" in answer choice E.

And yes, E could be right if you remove the word "only". As it reads, they are reversing the statement.

[AyakiK696]

Is B just correct through process of elimination? I was choosing between B and E and ultimately went with the latter, but I see now how it's wrong because of the "only." I wasn't so sure about B, though, because there isn't really anything in the stimulus that suggests that they currently show too many action shows? Although I guess since this is a "most logically completes" question, that doesn't really matter....

[ohthatpatrick]

First of all, (A) is the correct answer.

When Logical Completion questions want us to fill in a Conclusion blank ("Thus, ______"), we're trying to pull together the two strands of thought we were given, with safe, moderate LSAT language.

ON ONE HAND
Most people would prefer an action show to an opera

ON THE OTHER HAND
A constant stream of action shows is not in the public interest
and
The broadcast media must serve all of the public interest

(A) This is a fair synthesis of the three claims. Broadcasters have an obligation to serve the all the many interests of the public interest, and putting a constant stream of action shows on all channels (i.e. "looking ONLY to popularity to decide programming schedules") would not be in the public interest.

(B) is problematic because the author never speaks about the current ratio of art/culture shows to action shows. It's possible that the author concludes, in a satisfied way, "Thus, broadcasters currently supplement action programming with artistic/cultural programming." There's no momentum taking us to (B)'s idea that the current status quo is messed up and needs to be fixed.

(E) The "only if" makes this an extreme and unsupportable claim. If you dropped the word "only" and just said, "If all channels carried mostly action shows, the broadcast media could be accused of neglecting the public interest", then this answer would be pretty supportable.

But saying "only if" means the author would be saying "ONLY a steady stream of action shows would neglect the public interest .... there is NO other way for broadcast media to neglect the public interest".

[AyakiK696]

Makes perfect sense--I was thrown off by the word "popularity" in the answer choice, which wasn't mentioned in the stimulus, but I can see now how we can make that inference based on the information we're given! Thank you!