Q5 - The explanation offered by the author

[rebecca.arian]

I've read these two questions over and over. What is question 4 asking for and what is question 5 asking for and how are they different?

[noah]

Question 4 and 5 are both asking for a necessary assumption - and it should be no surprise that there are multiple assumptions in an argument.

(For example, if I argue Terry must have be eating fatty foods since she's sick I have to assume that Terry's illness was not caused by a virus that is unaffected by diet, and I must assume that fatty foods have some effect on health.)

In this question, the conclusion is that political opinions on TV talk shows are generally bland and innocous. Why? Because these shows must appeal to a lot of people.

What's the gap? Well, what if most people actually dislike bland and innocous views? And, furthermore, even if you have bland and innocous view, does that mean you won't watch shows that have different views? Perhaps you want to watch shows that argue against what you think so that you can get angry with it.

(B) hinges on the first assumption I discussed ablve. And, if we negate it, and assume that those bland opinions are not in the mainstream, then the argument doesn't make sense since what would those opinions have to do with capturing the largest group of people possible?

(A) is out of scope - we're not interested in the executives.

(C) is about political analysts and their understanding of the effect their views have - out of scope again!

(D) is tempting since it seems to hint at the issue of whether people want to watch views they disagree with. However, it's actually about what viewers want to argue with. Furthermore, we don't care what viewers think of freedom of speech! Out of scope!

(E) is again about the executives. While they may feel their the center of the universe, they're definitely not in the core of this argument.

[rebecca.arian]

Woah that was simple. Sinister LSAT. Thanks for your help!

[513852276]

I'm not sure what "generally" means here. It could mean "most of bland and innocuous political opinions are in mainstream" or "most of mainstream political opinions are bland and innocuous." I think only the latter meaning is a necessary assumption.

[rinagoldfield]

Thanks for your post, 513852276. You make a great, specific observation. We really need to know that “most mainstream political opinions are bland and innocuous.” (B) would get at that meaning more clearly if it said “mainstream opinions are generally bland and innocuous.”

I will argue, however, that (B) still gets there. If “most of bland and innocuous opinions are in the mainstream,” it follows that those opinions are very common. Mainstream is defined as commonly held. Saying that an opinion is in the mainstream, generally or not, means that that opinion is widely shared by the population. Knowing that bland and innocuous opinions are widely shared is necessary for this argument to follow.

If that feels confusing, let’s envision a scenario in which most bland and innocuous opinions are in the mainstream, but comprise only a tiny fraction of said mainstream. That’s impossible because those opinions would not, then, be mainstream, since they were held by such a tiny fraction of people.