I had a lot of trouble with this one. I first chose (C) and then chose (A). I understood the stimulus but seemed to have trouble understanding what the answer choices were stating.
Could you please explain why (B) is right and why the others are wrong?
LSAT Forum
3 postsPage 1 of 1
-
- tswiftforever
-
Thanks Received: 0
-
Vinny Gambini
- Posts: 4
- Joined: June 23rd, 2013
-
- tommywallach
-
Thanks Received: 468
-
Atticus Finch
- Posts: 1041
- Joined: August 11th, 2009
Re: Q20 - In North America there has been
Hey Tswift,
This is an assumption question, so let's start by focusing on the core.
Conclusion: Explosion of interest in opera over last 30 years
Premise: Of the 70 active companies, 45 were founded in the last 30 years.
(A) Believe it or not, we don't need this. Many artistic operations make their money through donations and public support. They don't need to be commercially viable. However, (A) is also too extreme. The argument does not assume that all of them are viable, just enough to bear out the conclusion that interest is exploding.
(B) CORRECT. The problem with the argument is that even if 45 companies were founded recently, what if there were a thousand companies 40 years ago, and all of them died out, and 45 new ones came in? This tells us that there were fewer than 45 companies that closed in the past 30 years. This helps prove that 45 new ones opening up is greater than the number that closed.
(C) is totally out of scope. We only care about opera.
(D) doesn't actually help, because the average size could go up because most opera houses close. If 9 out of 10 opera houses close, even if audiences are up 50%, we've still lost audience.
(E) is never assumed. We don't need to know why they were founded, just that they were (and that they outnumbered the houses that closed).
Hope that helps!
-t
#officialexplanation
This is an assumption question, so let's start by focusing on the core.
Conclusion: Explosion of interest in opera over last 30 years
Premise: Of the 70 active companies, 45 were founded in the last 30 years.
(A) Believe it or not, we don't need this. Many artistic operations make their money through donations and public support. They don't need to be commercially viable. However, (A) is also too extreme. The argument does not assume that all of them are viable, just enough to bear out the conclusion that interest is exploding.
(B) CORRECT. The problem with the argument is that even if 45 companies were founded recently, what if there were a thousand companies 40 years ago, and all of them died out, and 45 new ones came in? This tells us that there were fewer than 45 companies that closed in the past 30 years. This helps prove that 45 new ones opening up is greater than the number that closed.
(C) is totally out of scope. We only care about opera.
(D) doesn't actually help, because the average size could go up because most opera houses close. If 9 out of 10 opera houses close, even if audiences are up 50%, we've still lost audience.
(E) is never assumed. We don't need to know why they were founded, just that they were (and that they outnumbered the houses that closed).
Hope that helps!
-t
#officialexplanation
-
- SJK493
-
Thanks Received: 1
-
Jackie Chiles
- Posts: 31
- Joined: May 14th, 2018
Re: Q20 - In North America there has been
Would answer (E) be acceptable if it were 'some of the 45 most recently founded opera companies were established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience' instead of ALL 45 most recently founded opera companies?
Or because the evidence is a correlation, and not established as a causation, we are unsure whether public interest caused the increase in the number of companies or the reverse, this is unacceptable?
Or because the evidence is a correlation, and not established as a causation, we are unsure whether public interest caused the increase in the number of companies or the reverse, this is unacceptable?
3 posts Page 1 of 1