Q20 - Historian: Radio drama requires its

[pinkdatura]

previous: radio drama--> exercise imagination
now TV--->less exercise imagination

the assumption here is people do less radio drama and TV doesn't exercise imagination

I am wondering E is incorrect because though TV doesn't require viewer to think, but may still exercise imagination in other way?

[noah]

Exactly!

The core: Radio requires you to picture what you hear -->TV viewers today don't exercise their imagination as much as radio listeners used to

There's a big jump from picturing what you hear to not engaging your imagination! (D) addresses a related gap in a roundabout manner: perhaps there's something that is exercising today's TV viewers (perhaps that's TV, perhaps it's Facebook)

Incorrect Answers
(A) is out of scope because it introduces time spent.
(B) is out of scope because there's no discussion of which form is more familiar - and perhaps radio was more familiar?
(C) discusses whether (and why) TV is undesirable. Not part of the core!
(E) is tempting - but if you negate it - TV drama does require viewers to think - does it destroy the argument? No, perhaps they think but aren't exercising their imagination. It might be the picturing of what you hear that leads to the exercising of the imagination. Furthermore, as some savy LSAT preppers pointed out to me further down in this thread, why would we need it to be specifically that TV dramas make us think/use our imagination? It's only necessary that something about watching TV fills the gap, not a specific type of TV programming.

[tino1317]

I have a real problem with this question. At first I selected D, then switched to E. D seems way to extreme in its wording, while E seems like it is valid because it is not as strongly worded and seems very required to the argument.

Radio drama requires thinking about what they hear

Television viewer generation do so less frequently

How can it be untrue and not required that because of those two facts, television drama does not REQUIRE its viewers to think about what they see. By not requiring it, that means many people may not be required to think about what they see/hear, but it leaves open that some may think about what they see/hear. I just don't get how that is not necessary to the assumption. If that were not necessary I could say television drama does require viewers to think about what they see, and wouldn't that make the argument fall apart?

I understand how D is necessary, but I really feel like without E, it also falls apart.

[noah]

I know what you mean about having a problem with a question - I wish I had a dollar each time a question pissed me off!

I am struggling a bit to get your point, but I think you're saying that you can see that (D) is necessary but that you think (E) is also. However, from what you said--"By not requiring it, that means many people may not be required to think about what they see/hear, but it leaves open that some may think about what they see/hear. I just don't get how that is not necessary to the assumption."--it seems like you might have lost your grasp momentarily on what a necessary assumption's job is. It does not need to make the argument work--it's OK if there are still potential issues. The key is that the negated form destroys the argument's validity.

As for your point about (E) being required in some way, don't forget that we don't know that it's the thinking that leads to the use of the imagination. It could be the picturing of characters' physical appearances..

Tell me if that doesn't clear it up for you.

[nflamel69]

Not sure if anyone mentioned it, E specifically refers to television dramas while the conclusions refers to the television. there is definitely a detail creep there. I chose this during PT because this has so many qualities that we like for a necessary assumption answer while D is extreme. but sometimes one word does make all the difference

[tnblake10]

I'm not sure if this can help anyone but I originally chose E and couldn't realize I was wrong until I read a bunch of these explanations and then went back and re-read the question. So hopefully by explaining how I got it it might help someone.

What clicked for me is that at first just because the conclusion references "the generation of television viewers" and the question is referencing radio and television I thought the answer had to include television. But it doesn't. The question stem doesn't say that watching television is the only way people can exercise their imagination. As was noted earlier, the generation of television viewers could not exercise their imaginations by watching television but still exercise then as much as older generations did by radio through some other means such as exercising, reading books, whatever.

Also Tino, in reference to your confusion over the negation of D, at first it seems like it does destroy the argument but the negation of it states "television drama DOES require its viewers to think about what they say". But that doesn't actually destroy the conclusion that today's television viewers exercise their imaginations less than older generations who listened to radio. The passage doesn't exactly equate "thinking about what you see" as exercising your imagination, it only discusses "thinking about what you hear". And even if you could make that conclusion, just because they are thinking about what they see doesn't mean they are exercising their imaginations as frequently as people who listened to radio. Television viewers could be thinking about what they see, exercising their imaginations, and still not be doing it as much as people who listened to radio. However, if D is negated and something DOES fill the gap left by radio, then the argument falls apart. Hope this helped. Apologize for the length.

[alandman]

I have a question about answer choice D:

If we negate it, the answer choice will state something along the lines of: "for today's generation of tv viewers, there's something that fills the gap left by radio as a medium for exercising the imagination."

That doesn't destroy the conclusion though that today's generation of tv viewers exercises their imagination LESS FREQUENTLY....

So just because there's something that fills that gap, doesn't mean that it doesn't exercise their imagination the same way...what gives?

[schmid215]

I agree ^. It's pretty clear that (D) is not a necessary assumption. The negation: Something fills the gap left by radio as a medium for exercising imagination. Would that entail that today's viewers exercise their imagination as much or more frequently than the people of earlier generations? Obviously not. The thing filling the gap could be a really crappy stoker of the imagination. I suppose they may have been going for "fills the gap" means "replaces and does just as good a job", but when we consider "....as a medium for exercising the imagination...", we see that this cannot be the case on any reasonable construction; the "gap" can be filled by anything that is a medium for exercising the imagination, no matter how much effect it has in imagination.

What makes (E) wrong is "drama". Eliminate "drama" and I believe it's correct, because the difference in use of imagination between the two eras is predicated on thinking being necessary in one era's form of entertainment and not in another's. If thinking is necessary in both, then you can't conclude that one has more of something produced by thinking on the basis that it requires thinking, because the other one requires thinking too.

Edit: I still think (D) is the best answer of the bunch. I fell for (E), but of course if they had cleaned up (D) I never would have made it one more choice down.

[b16]

I agree with schmid. The main reason (E) is incorrect is that it specifies "Television DRAMA" while the stimulus is about watching television in general. (D) covers for the possibility that any other television programming or new media may not require its viewers "to regularly exercise their imagination," which is also the phrasing in the conclusion of the stimulus.

[noah]

Great discussion!

I see what schmid is saying about what filling a gap means. But, I think that filling a gap means it's now filled -- so the hole is not a problem.

As for (E), I agree that "TV dramas" is too specific. Do we need it to be that TV dramas is the form of TV that is filling the gap? No!

I'll go ahead and add that to my original analysis. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Alvanith]

Sorry I have something to ask because I cannot choose a answer on my timed practice.

I understand why E is incorrect but not on the basis of detail creep or the negation test. Since the conclusion is television viewers imagine LESS FREQUENTLY, it is too much to assume the television drama does NOT require thinking. If we simply assume the television dramas require thinking on a LESS FREQUENT basis, the conclusion could stand. This is to say, E is too extreme. And of course the gap between thinking and imagination is another reason to eliminate E.

But I am not quite persuaded by D is necessary. I think the word "NOTHING" is also extreme. What if there is something to fill the gap but not enough to fill the gap entirely, the conclusion could still stand because it just says television viewers imagine LESS FREQUENTLY. It is too much to assume there is NOTHING to fill the gap. Am I thinking too much?

Sorry I have to bring up another "what if":(

[ohthatpatrick]

Great recap of (E).

We could fix (E) by making it say
(E) Watching television involves less use of the imagination than did listening to the radio of earlier generations.

In terms of "nothing" being extreme in (D), I disagree.

I agree that "nothing" is extreme as a degree modifier.

For instance, we could equivalently re-state (E) as "TV drama requires nothing in terms of thinking". That's extreme. It requires NOTHING?

However, when "nothing" is being used as a noun, it's not extreme. It's just ruling out a potential objection.

For example:
John and Ben went to the park together. They each found 10 quarters on the ground. However, Ben lost 3 of his on the way home. Thus, John came home with more newly found quarters than Ben.

How would you falsify this conclusion?

You'd say, "What if Ben found some other quarters before or after the trip to the park?"

A correct Necessary Assumption here would sound like
(D) Nothing happened to Ben on the way home from the park that resulted in him finding any more quarters.

Again, that 'nothing' isn't a degree modifier. It's just ruling out a possibility.

You should get very receptive to "ruling out" language for Necessary Assumption. I'd say 25-45% of correct answers use it.

And for these types of answers, the Negation Test is particularly easy and effective. Easy, because all you do to negate it is switch the "nothing" to "something". Effective, because this type of correct answer choice is ruling out an objection. As soon as you negate it, it becomes an objection.

There is a lot of talk in this thread about "filling the gap" being an ambiguous phrase that "might FILL it but not really, you know, FILL it".

I'm not sure where people are getting ambiguity there. If something fills a gap, then the gap is completely filled.

It's not like there's a hole in the ground and I'm saying, "I'm presently filling the gap with cement" (in which case I might be only partially finished).

It's like there's a hole in the ground and I said, "Yeah, someone came by earlier and filled the gap with cement." (it's completely filled up!)

So (D), when negated, ensures us that whatever today's generation lacks in imagination by watching TV vs. listening to radio, they make up AT LEAST that much imagination some other way.

That doesn't actually PROVE the conclusion is wrong. After all, TV vs. radio is just one source of imagination usage to consider when comparing today's generation to earlier generations. But it's a crushing objection to the argument, since the disparity in imagination between radio and TV was the entire leg the author was standing on.

(Keep this in mind for Nec. Assump --- when you negate a correct answer to Necessary Assumption, it doesn't have to falsify the conclusion ... it just has to be a severe weakening objection to the argument)

Hope this helps.

[contropositive]

The assumption I arrived at is: TV viewers less frequently picture for themselves what they hear.
I also see the mismatch discussed above between picturing and imagining although I feel like that could be the same thing.

Wouldn't E be wrong because its says "what they see" when the argument core is about picturing what one hears.

[ohthatpatrick]

Your pre-phrase sounds pretty good. I think you might be side-stepping the commonsense part of TV being a visual medium. So you're definitely SEEING stuff (assuming you're facing the TV). "Picturing" what you hear, via radio, would be interpreted as "INVENTING, in your mind's eye" the visual counterpart to the sounds you're hearing.

"Picturing" what you hear, via TV, is just watching TV. The TV provides pictures and sound, so you're not inventing the picture; you're just looking at it.

The conclusion is claiming that an entire generation of people use their imagination less frequently. We can attack that claim by saying that TV watching DOES lend itself to some use of the imagination and/or by saying that OTHER aspects of this generation of people lends itself to using the imagination.

I don't think we really need to draw a distinction between "picturing" and "imagining".

The bigger distinction with (E) is between "thinking" and "imagining". Thinking about something does not mean you're engaging your visual imagination.

[jasonleb1]

I originally chose D but I changed my answer to A because I didn't feel that D properly addressed the "less frequently" mentioned in the conclusion. I get that the historian is assuming that television doesn't stimulate the imagination to the extent listening to radio does, which is why I chose D in the first place, but I'm not seeing how D addresses the frequency of using one's imagination .

[ohthatpatrick]

(D) addresses the frequency of using one's imagination in this way ...

The author is assuming that people don't listen to radio drama as much as they used to.
The author assumes, from that, that people aren't using their imagination as much as they used to.

In the wording of (D), as people stopped listening to radio drama, they no longer had that medium in their lives for exercising the imagination --- a gap was created.

(D) is answering a possible objection: "maybe something ELSE now fills that gap, fills that role, serves the purpose of helping people exercise their imagination."

Is radio drama the only way for us to exercise imagination? Of course not. So why should we assume that just because we're listening to less radio drama that we're exercising our imagination less?

If you're the author, you have to assume that there's no adequate substitute (no gap-filler) for the imaginative exercise we got from radio drama.

In terms of (A), you rarely need authors to assume SAMENESS ... that's a very extreme idea that is almost never crucial to the argument.

Would it hurt the author's argument if people spend MORE time watching TV? Nope, cuz he could argue that TV-watching time does not involve much exercise of the imagination.

Does it hurt the author's argument if people spend LESS time watching TV? Nope. It would only hurt if people applied that non-TV time to something that exercised their imagination. But by negating (A), we don't get told anything like that. We'd have to add in our own story to make the negation of (A) hurt the author.

By contrast, negating (D) hurts the author directly by saying that "since radio went bye-bye, SOMETHING ELSE took its place as our way of exercising our imagination."

[andrewgong01]

The bigger distinction with (E) is between "thinking" and "imagining". Thinking about something does not mean you're engaging your visual imagination.

There's something I am still not quite grasping about Choice E because in the stimulus we learn that radio dramas create imagination through requiring listeners to think about what they hear and picture it. It does use the word imagine what they hear and picture as they use "think".

And then for E it says we do not require viewers to think about what they see.
When I was doing this problem I chose "E" because I thought one of the gap was TV's don't allow you to imagine as much as radio drama and "E" seems to get across this because it uses "think" just like the stimulus.

For "D", the negation would be that something fills the gap but wouldn't we need an additional layer of assumption that that "something" is actually used by people. For example, maybe operas still fill the gap but we have to assume people go to operas for "D" to hold because it is not enough to just have a something but also that the something is being "used" by people.

I read your earlier post about "nothing" in this context is not "Extreme" but I don't think the author has to assume nothing fills the gap; the author only needs to assume that people are not doing the something that fills the void left by radios . In other words, it is fine if there are other things that fill the gap because the argument, as a NA, only needs to fill the gap of people are not actually doing something that fills the void; not there are no alternatives to radios that fill the void. I think put differently my ideal answer choice for "d" would have said like "People today do not do anything that fills the gap left by radio " instead of "Nothing fills the gap left by radio". I think it was this fact that caught be off guard and I ended up with "E" because I was intially more attracted to "D" until I thought deeper into the problem of people actually doing the something to fill the void left by radios

[ohthatpatrick]

Imagining is a form of thinking, for sure. But when (E) talks about "thinking", is it referring to "imagining"? Not necessarily.

Mathematical calculation is also a form of thinking.

Do we think that mathematical calculation and imagination are the same thing?

Of course not. So we can't interpret "thinking" to mean "imagining".

As you suggested, we would like (E) if it said "TV drama does not require its viewer to exercise their imagination as much as radio drama did".

The author is fine with saying that TV drama requires its viewers to think about what they see:
they may watch an episode of "Blackish" and then think about race relations in America.
they may watch an episode of "Game of Thrones" and then think about whether a certain person is going to double-cross another character in a future episode.

The author is NOT fine with saying that TV drama requires its viewers to "exercise their imagination as much as they would if they were listening to a radio drama".

For (D), you're right that the wording of the negation would not refute the conclusion, but that's not the standard by which you measure the Negation Test.

It's really just, "Which answer, if negated, most weakens".

[WesleyC316]

I would be totally OK with (D) if this is a sufficient assumption or strengthening question. I'm having a hard time identifying the necessity in (D), since I think it's totally possible that SOMETHING fills that gap, while not having as much effect as radio.

But if I have to justify this answer choice, I will focus on the "left by radio" part, rather than "medium for exercising the imagination". As we know in the stimulus, radio drama played a vital role in boosting people's imagination. So the gap left by radio must be huge. Therefore, even though there might be something being as the medium for exercising the imagination, as long as it doesn't fill that huge gap, and nothing else does, the argument stands, making it necessary for the argument.

Still, I concede (D) as the best among the 5. Hope my convoluted explanation will be helpful!

[JeremyK686]

Breakdown:
Boomers listen to radio dramas, which causes them to exercise their imagination.
Zoomers don’t listen to the radio.
Zoomers exercise their imagination less frequently than boomers did.

Analysis:
The conclusion makes a general claim about how millennials use their time in comparison to baby boomers and whether that time utilized involved more/less exercising of imagination.

Solely on the basis that boomers with radio exercised their imaginations more than millennials with tv did is assuming

Putting myself in the author’s shoes, I feel like the author is trying to make this argument…

Let’s say human beings are capable of exercising their imaginations from a frequency rate of 0-100. Radio contributes 30-frequency-rate. Boomers listened to radio (+30). Zoomers listen to no radio at all (-30). Therefore, zoomers exercise their imaginations at a lower rate (-30) than the rate at which boomers did.

Answer (D) says for zoomers, nothing fills the gap left by radio as a medium for exercising the imagination. In my example, for zoomers, the gap left by radio is a -30 spread, and if that margin were to be filled in, it would be filled in with some other +30 source (perhaps some cognitive-exercise app).

Replacing radio with this cognitive-exercise app essentially countervails the author’s premise that the lack of a radio-source which provides a lack of exercising imagination results in zoomers’ overall lack of exercising their imagination relative to boomers. By way of this countervailing, the argument is left with very little to support its conclusion. The argument can no longer claim that the loss of radio provides support for the idea that zoomers are exercising their imaginations less because even though they lost radio as such a source, they gained a quantifiably equivalent source in the cognitive-exercising app. So, from here, knowing all of this, it would be REALLY tough to draw the same conclusion.

Of course, I can think of a million reasons to otherwise show that zoomers exercise their imagination less frequently than boomers do despite that fact that something similarly productive filled the role of the radio. Like perhaps zoomers read less; they play more video games; they’re mindlessly on social media. All of these are uncertain or unknown conjectures that aren’t established by the argument enough to have a specific impact on the argument.

Other Answer Choices:
(A) This is about the amount of time spent respectively; between the average tv viewer and the average radio listener. The argument is about the amount of imagination-exercise respectively; between average tv viewer and average radio listening. The items are correct, but the basis/scale is off.

(B) The more familiar, the less likely a consumer exercises their imagination. It’s totally possible that the radio was relatively more familiar than tv is.

(C) Inhibiting the development of creativity is superfluous in terms of they exercise their imagination less.

Responding To Previous Posters:
One poster said…

Something fills the gap left by radio as a medium for exercising imagination. Would that entail that today's viewers exercise their imagination as much or more frequently than the people of earlier generations? Obviously not. The thing filling the gap could be a really crappy stoker of the imagination.

My response (I hope this helps) …

It might be a crappy medium of exercising imagination, but it’s nonetheless a medium of exercising the imagination; that’s the fundamental concern of the argument. Attributing some sort of value - calling a medium of exercising imagination a ‘crappy’ one - isn’t imperative to the argument because the argument is about the amount of exercising the imagination in general. For instance, whether it’s a nice long-jog, or fifteen minutes on the elliptical; a person is still exercising.

Same poster said…

Something fills the gap left by radio as a medium for exercising imagination. This means that the ‘X’ amount of time spent listening to radio (exercising imagination) is replaced with ‘X’ amount of time spent doing ‘Z’ (not radio; which also exercises imagination). Would that entail that today's viewers exercise their imagination as much or more frequently than the people of earlier generations?

My response…

What sticks out to me is your choice of words in your analysis of the argument and finding the unstated assumption. By stating that ‘X entails Y’ you’re saying that Y is a logical consequence of X; that Y necessarily follows from X. Does the negation of answer (D) logically necessitate the contradictory-denial of the conclusion. Maybe. But your paraphrasing might lead you to think that the right answer, when negated, must contradict the conclusion - refute it entirely. Given what the author provides as evidence and context, the right answer, when negated, doesn’t necessarily exhaustively counter the conclusion. When negated, the right answer should make the reasoning less plausible; make the conclusion less likely to follow from the support.

Let’s say I’m comparing boomers to zoomers (generation-z). The way I look at the conclusion is that the author sort of implies that any able-minded human has the potential to exercise their imagination, but zoomers tap into that potential less than the amount boomers tapped into. In other words, zoomers exercise their imagination less than boomers did, even though zoomers are capable of exercising their imagination just as much or perhaps even more than boomers did. I mean, it’d be weird if the author implied that the human race from boomer to zoomer slightly devolved into human beings that are quintessentially less capable of exercising imaginative thought.

The author thinks that zoomers spend less time exercising their imagination than boomers did. The only way the argument’s conclusion has a chance of being accepted as true is if the source that exercised boomers’ imagination (radio) is subtracted for and replaced with ONLY a source that is used by zoomers and that seemingly fails to exercise their imaginations (perhaps television) OR it isn’t replaced with a source at all.

Some other posters commented that…

(E) is wrong because it talks about ‘television drama’ and that ‘television drama’ is too specific/particular. I would argue that it’s the opposite, and if anything, it’s appropriately and adequately broad in relation to the argument. The argument talks about people who watch ‘things on television’ and this answer talks about people who watch ‘television drama’. Can’t it be true that you’re viewing something on television if and only if you’re watching television drama. The concept of ‘television drama’ is super extensive and not as comprehensive as some posters think. To say ‘drama’ in a colloquial sense means that it is ‘emotional’, but while drama can entail being emotional, it can just as equally entail comedy or horror or suspense or satire or mystery. Those are all types of ‘television drama’. This concept isn’t ‘too detailed’.

What stood out in Answer (E) for me was its comprehensiveness. The argument is about whether something makes me think as much as radio did or would have. This is about two things: one, something that makes you think; and two, something that makes you think but in an amount relative to the amount that something made people of previous generations think. This answer is less qualified and less comprehensive; it’s merely about something that makes current generations think. Decreasing in comprehension, this answer might not apply to the evaluation of ‘a current-amount relative to a past-amount’.