Q22 - Under the influence of today's

[weiyichen1986]

Hi, i picked E on this one, the reason why it is wrong is it because the stimulus did not talk about the popularity of children book?

I am also confused by B, why is it " important" to its longevity, the stimulus just mentions that lack of substance "leads" to short-lived items.

Thanks in advance.

[maryadkins]

Hi, i picked E on this one, the reason why it is wrong is it because the stimulus did not talk about the popularity of children book?

Yes!

(B) is correct because if the lack of substance is leading to the books being short-lived, then it's--at least in part--CAUSING their short lifespan. "Leads to" is causation on the LSAT. So we can infer that it's important to the longevity of a children's book because the lack of it means the book will be short-lived.

(A) is unsupported. We're not told that the humor and narrow focus are what are taking away substance.

(C) is nowhere!

(D) is likewise nowhere. Nothing is in there about how children judge books.

Hope this helps!

[al2568]

Regarding answer choice E,

I thought that lack of substance leads to short lived items, is mentioning popularity. Short-lived = unpopular.

I think E is mostly wrong because it says that the lack of substance is unlikely to affect popularity. when it would be likely to affect it.

Am i wrong?

[crocca]

Hello, I am still not totally convinced on answer B. I don't see it has a much better fit than E.

The argument contains the conditional: lack of substance -> short-lived books, which when contrapositive-d (using assumed opposites) could be: long-lived books -> do not lack substance. Answer B simply states that substance is important to longevity, which to me could reverse the flow of logic or whatever (it just isn't an accurate reflection of what is stated in the argument).

I also saw the conditional: lack of substance -> short-lived books which are on TRENDY subjects. I don't think it's too much of a leap from trendy to popular, and answer E doesn't conflict with the flow of the argument.

I am not really satisfied with either answer, but I don't understand why B is better.

[ghorizon09]

The passage states:

If Lack of substance ----> (short-lived, aka Not long)

-S ----------> -L

The contrapositive is:

If Long------------> Substance

if L ---->S

Therefore: substance is important to longevity because it's a necessary condition for it.