Q10 - Concert promoter: Some critics claim

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

I chose D, because D shows that the conclusion about popularity shouldn't be drawn based on a comparison of a "dissimilar event" such as Merch sales.

But the argument states that the comparison of merchandise sales is made to "similar" events.

So the concert promoter concludes that the concert series has popular appeal. Why? Because it's sales of merchandise are just as high as other similar concert series. So does that prove that the concert series has popular appeal? Maybe, but it depends on how popular the concert series is that the promoter is using as a comparison.

Let's try a simpler example. Suppose I tell you that my house is expensive. And the evidence I give is that it costs as much as my neighbor's house. If my neighbor's house is not expensive, then it wouldn't be fair to conclude that my house is expensive. On the other hand, if my neighbor's house is expensive, then the comparison does show that my house is expensive as well.

Back to the argument, the promoter is assuming that the concert series the promoter uses in his/her comparison is popular. Just like I was assuming that my neighbor's house was expensive. And this assumption is perfectly stated in answer choice (C).

Let's look at the incorrect answers:

(A) does not occur in the argument. There is no emotional attack of the critics, but rather an insufficient attempt to show that they are wrong.
(B) is too strong. The argument never assumes that merchandise sales is the "sole" indicator of popular appeal.
(D) is close, but the argument is careful to specify that the compared events are indeed "similar."
(E) is irrelevant, since the conclusion is not about any one particular concert within the series, but rather about the concert series as a whole.

Hope that helps!


#officialexplanation

[r1r200]

Can you please explain why its not B? Thanks

[bbirdwell]

The reasoning in the argument depends on sales being a valid indicator, but not the "sole" indicator. It's fine for there to be others -- the author has merely chosen to use sales.

[shaynfernandez]

I chose D, because D shows that the conclusion about popularity shouldn't be drawn based on a comparison of a "dissimilar event" such as Merch sales.

Any help in understanding why C is correct and why D is incorrect would be GREAT

[austindyoung]

I got this one correct, but was down between (B) and (C). I think (B) is tempting if we're treating this as we would a causal claim on the LSAT, where the author concludes causality-- at least according to the Powerscore LR book when the author assumes causality they assume that it is *the only* cause.

This isn't a causal claim, so maybe that's where confusion comes in. If anyone disagrees, I always defer to what the MLSAT LR book says if there is ever a contention between the two (or defer to the method that gets you the best results).

This is just for anyone who maybe had that section of the PS Bible in mind when doing this. I did, which was the only reason I had (B) as a contender.

Actually, if any Geeks want to comment on this, that'd be great!

[mharr]

Would someone mind explaining why answer choice C is correct? I understand why the other answer choices are wrong. I answered this question correctly on blind review only because I did process of elimination.

[mharr]

Nevermind my question, I think I just figured it out. The concert promoter compared the sales in his/her concert series to the sales of comparable series and concludes that his/her concert series does not lack popular appeal because its sales are equal to or greater than the sales of other comparable concert series. Well, what if those comparable concert series lack popular appeal as well? Answer choice C addresses this flaw.

[nikamon]

Great explanations everyone! What question type is this?

[maria487]

I was confident in B. In general, if the LSAT claims that X --> Y, then does that not mean that the argument is assuming Y could have resulted only from X? That is why I thought B is correct.

Because our income is high (because X), our concert series does not lack popular appeal (then Y). From this argument, why can't we assume that the argument considers X to be the only relevant factor in concluding Y?

[ohthatpatrick]

You said:
"I was confident in B. In general, if the LSAT claims that X --> Y, then does that not mean that the argument is assuming Y could have resulted only from X?"

It does not mean that.

If you play in the NBA, then you make more than $100k / year
NBA --> make $100k+
X -------> Y

Does that statement assume that "making more than $100k/ year can only result from playing in the NBA"?

Of course not. I'm not sure where people got this "if X causes Y, then X is the ONLY thing that causes Y."

Jumping off a tall building will kill you. Am I claiming that ONLY jumping off a tall building will kill you? No.

When you say, "Y could have resulted only from X", that conditionally looks like
Y --> X

"only" indicates a necessary idea. Necessary ideas go on the right.

You said:
"Because our income is high (because X), our concert series does not lack popular appeal (then Y). From this argument, why can't we assume that the argument considers X to be the only relevant factor in concluding Y?"

We can say that the argument considers X to be sufficient to conclude Y.
That looks like
(prem) X --> (conc) Y

Bob was able to read me three pages from "Catcher in the Rye". Thus, Bob must be able to read English.

Do I think that "reading three pages from Catcher in the Rye" is the only relevant way to just someone's English literacy?

No ... it's just ONE relevant way that I happened to use as my evidence.

Is that argument flawed because I ...
(B) take for granted that reading three pages from "Catcher in the Rye" is the sole indicator of being able to read English?

No, it's just an indicator, according to the logic of my argument.

Remember that "takes for granted" = Necessary Assumption.
Remember that for Necessary Assumption, you can't go overboard with strong language.
Remember that for something to be a Necessary Assumption, negating it should badly hurt the argument.

(B) has two strikes against it.
1. "sole" = "only" = extreme. It's the only indicator mentioned, but that doesn't mean that the author assumed that merch sales are the ONLY way to measure popular appeal.

2. If you negate (B) and say, "there are other indicators of popular appeal", how have you hurt the argument? How has that given you a way to counter the conclusion and argue that the concert series did NOT have popular appeal?

You can't make a valid objection by saying, "Your concert series didn't have popular appeal. After all, you could have ALSO measured its popular appeal by looking at the size of the audience."

Meanwhile, if you negate (C), you DO get an objection.
"Your concert series didn't have popular appeal. After all, the concert series you're comparing it to (and equating it with) DID NOT possess popular appeal."

Hope this helps.

[janetT279]

I picked B, but I think I figure it out now:

What B says is:
popular appeal → memorabilia sales

However, what the promoter says is:
memorabilia sales equal or higher than similar sales at comparable series → popular appeal

I do think it is a tricky question because there are 2 mistakes, one is demonstrated in C, the other one is the gap between popular appeal and memorabilia sales. I noticed the second one immediately and chose B without thinking the possibility that there may exist other mistakes.

[EmilyL849]

Hi, teachers

Regarding (E)

The conclusion is that the concert series as a whole does not lack popular appeal. Why?
Because (many / most or whatever quantifier maybe) individual concerts generate better profits compared to other comparable series. So, the comparison is between many individual concerts vs. comparable series. The author is drawing a conclusion about his concert series based on this comparison. So, the author does seem to assume that what is true of many individual series is true of the concert series as a whole. A part to whole mistake.


1) Is this answer incorrect because (E) does not describe a part to whole flaw or is my interpretation wrong?
(If you failed to distinguish the whole from individuals, then you are treating the two as the same, which would be a part to whole fallacy in this case?)
2) What the stimulus refers to as "at the concerts" means a series and not individual concerts??

Thank you as always

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, the phrasing “our income at the concerts” means “our income at the concerts [in our concert series]” was comparable to [the merchandising income from the concerts] at comparable concert series.”

So it’s whole to whole. She’s comparing the total merch income from her concert series to the total merch income from comparable series.

If we said something like “People claim our wrestling event was more violent than others. But the number of leg and arm injuries from the matches was less than or equal to that at comparable events.”

We’d be talking about the total number of leg and injuries at our wrestling event, not the number of injuries at specific matches.

[LSATN100]

I chose B during timed PT and chose D during the blind review.

After review, I find that there are two flaws in this argument:
1) takes for granted that income from sales of memorabilia is one indicator of popular appeal.
2) relativity flaw.

The first flaw is apparent: the sales of memorabilia has nothing to do with the popular appeal of a concert series. For example, the fact that Starbucks on a university's campus generates a lot of revenue doesn't indicate that the university has popular appeal. A good indicator of the popular appeal of a concert is the number of common folks who is willing to attend the concert, the number of common folks who purchase high price tickets, or the amount of donation it has from common folks, etc.

Choice B and D attempt to describe this flaw.
B is wrong because of the word "sole"
D is wrong because "other, dissimilar events" do not refer to the sales of memorabilia. They refer to "comparable series," i.e. similar concert series.

Choice C describes the relativity flaw.