Q1 - Critic: People today place an

[monster_omiga]

What is the argument of the stimulus?

It's very seldom that I can't identify the argument with confidence, but this one got me.

Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The conclusion of the argument is identified with the language cue "thus." So the final sentence stakes out the argument's conclusion; the current popularity of comedians who display disrespect in their acts is hardly surprising. The evidence for this is that the exaggeration of someone's failings to live up to the very ideals they hold in highest esteem is the basis for successful comedy.

This argument assumes that there are some people who fail to live up to their ideals. Otherwise, who would these comedians be disrespecting in their comedy acts? This assumption is pointed out in answer choice (D).

Incorrect Answers

(A) relates many terms within the argument in a way that need not be related. Such people who enjoy the comedy acts may indeed place a high value on the respect of others - for example those who live up their ideals.
(B) is too strong. Why limit success to only such comedians?
(C) could be the case, but would tend to undermine the argument rather than support it.
(E) is unneeded by the argument. Where does the argument make a comparison between previous and current comedy?

[slimjimsquinn]

I thought the conclusion was about the "current popularity."

Wouldn't answer choice A) make the popularity surprising? If the people who enjoyed comedians DID place a high value on respect for others, wouldn't it odd if a comedian who disrespected others is popular?

[nbayar1212]

A is wrong because the stimulus is not about placing value on respect and enjoying comedy BUT rather that when we don’t live up to the values that we hold in high esteem, those failings form the basis of successful comedy. That is, we don’t need to assume that just because you enjoy comedians that disrespect others, you don’t value respect. Maybe you do! But we do need to assume that 1. Comedians who show disrespect in their acts are failing to live up to the ideal of respecting others. D says this in a more general way by making the AC about people in general rather than about comedians.

[griffin.811]

All in all this question isn't that bad, but I got hung up on it for a bit.

When people fail to live up to the ideals they hold in highest esteem (one of which is respect), exaggeration of these failing makes for good comedy -->

Therefore, the popularity of comedians showing disrespect isn't surprising.

* For the popularity to not be surprising we need to assume that many supporters of these comedians are failing to live up to the ideals they hold in high esteem.

D advances this. If everyone that held an ideal in high esteem always lived up to it, according to this passage, it would be VERY SURPRISING that such comedians are popular.

[Yangyi.vita]

I believe the point here lies in the "exaggeration".

Pay attention to the "blatant disrespect"--it is an exaggeration.
The conclusion is: the success is no surprising.
In order to justify the due success, we have to conform to the procedure: 1. people fail to live up to the....2. Exaggerate such failure. I think the condition "when people fail to live up to the very ideals they hold in highest esteem,...." stipulates that the existence of such failure predates the exaggeration, and shall be considered as a prerequisite. So...

[WaltGrace1983]

Can someone look over my reasoning? This is a surprisingly complex stimulus for question 1. Yet by breaking it down, I think it seems much less complex

Fact: People place a high value on respect yet comedians display disrespect

The (comedian's) exaggeration of one's failing to live up to highest-esteemed ideals...is often the basis of successful comedy
→
Current popularity of comedians who display disrespect isn't surprising

Since this is a necessary assumption question, we look for the gaps and I see a few here:

(1) Question: Is the argument is assuming that respect is actually valued in the "highest esteem." It goes from saying that respect is "highly valued" to being an ideal that people "hold in the highest esteem." Or does it?

(2) Assumes that having successful comedy ensures a certain degree of popularity. It goes from talking about forming the basis of "successful comedy" to having the "current popularity" of them be not surprising

(3) Assumes that people sometimes fail to live up to highly esteemed values. I don't know if it has to be respect per se (see #1) but it does have to be a highly esteemed value.

The answer choices...

(A) We might actually assume the opposite. We would probably say that if you enjoy a comedian that displays disrespect, you probably value respect. Why? Because the stimulus says that exaggerating the failure of one to live up to highly esteemed ideals is typically a basis of successful comedy.

However, this doesn't mean that you cannot enjoy a comedian for other reasons. So all in all, you could also eliminate (A) because of that too.

(B) Doesn't need to be ONLY those comedians. We only know that exaggerating failings to live up to esteemed ideals often forms the basis of successful comedy. Therefore, blatant disrespect can be left out and still bring about successful comedy.

(C) Many people don't need to disapprove of anything. What does disapproval have to do with this?

(D) Yes! If people who value an ideal especially highly DO succeed in living up to that ideal ALWAYS then what would the comedians exaggerate? This negation makes the conclusion not follow from the premises.

(E) We aren't comparing the present to the past. Eliminate.

[WaltGrace1983]

Hmm.. or is that the first sentence ("People today...most popular comedians display blatant disrespect for others.") is actually NOT a part of the core?

Does respect actually have anything to do with this?

Maybe THAT is why I was having such trouble with this question. Does the "But when people fail to live up to..." show that the first sentence was just an opposing point or background information?

[maryadkins]

Hmm.. or is that the first sentence ("People today...most popular comedians display blatant disrespect for others.") is actually NOT a part of the core?

Does respect actually have anything to do with this?

Maybe THAT is why I was having such trouble with this question. Does the "But when people fail to live up to..." show that the first sentence was just an opposing point or background information?

YES! I was just about to write this to you then saw your follow-up post. GREAT catch.

And your reasoning on the rest is great. Well done.

[WaltGrace1983]

Hmm.. or is that the first sentence ("People today...most popular comedians display blatant disrespect for others.") is actually NOT a part of the core?

Does respect actually have anything to do with this?

Maybe THAT is why I was having such trouble with this question. Does the "But when people fail to live up to..." show that the first sentence was just an opposing point or background information?

YES! I was just about to write this to you then saw your follow-up post. GREAT catch.

And your reasoning on the rest is great. Well done.

Thanks! I have now been noticing this pattern a lot recently because I have been catching myself putting background information in the core. Is it safe to assume that when the LSAT injects words like "yet," "however," "but," "though," that I should be suspicious (though of course, not completely disregarded) of the preceding sentence's relevance to the core?

[maryadkins]

I think that's actually a pretty good strategy, Walt. I know you've heard it a million times so not to be a broken record, but definitely don't use it as a hard-and-fast rule. However [see! here comes the core...], I do think the words you listed are signal words for, "THIS NEXT PART IS MORE IMPORTANT!"

[pewals13]

I think the key on this uniquely ambiguous question #1 is to isolate the core:

Core

Exaggeration of people's failure
to live up to the very ideals they
hold in highest esteem often
forms the basis for successful
comedy
+
People today place a high value
on respect for others
+
Comedians today display blatant
disrespect for others

=>

The current popularity
of comedians who
display disrespect in
their acts is hardly
surprising

Assumptions:

1) Is the disrespect displayed by the comedians actually an exaggerated portrayal of someone else' failure to live up to an ideal? The conclusion isn't clear.

Answer choices:

(A) Out of Scope (relevance): This argument has nothing to do with people who enjoy the comedians- the issue is whether or not the disrespect of the comedians is surprising

(B) Out of Scope (too strong): Does it have to be true that success as a comedian requires disrespect for the conclusion to hold? No.

(C) Out of Scope (relevance): This could be tempting, after all, doesn't the disrespect portrayed by comedians fall short of the highest ideals that "people today" place an especially high value on? We don't know. We know that disrespect falls short of these ideals but not whether the portrayal of disrespect does. Does it have to be true that two or more people (many) disapprove of such a portrayal? No. Perhaps people approve because they feel such comedic exaggeration discourages the behavior.

(D) Correct: If people always succeeded in living up to the ideals they value especially highly, then the exaggeration of people's failure to live up to such ideals would not be possible and it therefore could not form the basis of successful comedy. This is required for the argument to hold.

(E) Out of scope (relevance): This argument does not include a comparison between past and present.