Q21 - Advertiser: Most TV shows

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Principle questions always require paying close attention to the details. When you're down to answer choices (A) and (B). You definitely want to look for differences and then compare them with the information in the stimulus.

So, the one glaring difference between (A) and (B) is that (A) says "unless one took certain actions," while answer choice (B) says "unless many people took certain actions." At this point you go back up to the stimulus and compare that with the information presented there. The second sentence says "However, advertisers will not pay to have their commercials aired during a TV show unless many people watching the show buy the advertised products as a result." One extra purchase isn't going to save the show.

The word "many" matches (B), making it the correct answer.

Here's the argument core...

Evidence
Advertisers will not pay to have their commercials aired during a TV show unless many people watching the show buy the advertised products as a result.

Conclusion
Anyone who feels that a TV show is worth preserving ought to buy the products advertised during that show.

Notice the evidence is about a "collective group" whereas the conclusion is about an "individual."

We'd like to bridge the gap in the argument and answer choice (B) does that.

(A) should not have said "one" but rather "many."
(B) bridges the gap within the argument for the reasons above.
(C) is off track. It's not about whether a TV show is worth preserving, but whether one feels it is worth preserving.
(D) restates the conclusion, but does not bridge the gap between the evidence and the conclusion.
(E) concerns those who feel most strongly about whether it is worth preserving. The argument, however, claims that everyone who feels the show is worth preserving should take certain actions.


#officialexplanation

#OfficialExplanation

[linzru86]

I was stuck on this one between B and D. The reason I didn't like B and ultimately picked D as the answer was because B says "if a TV show would be canceled..." I felt that since the conclusion says strictly "anyone who feels that a TV show is worth preserving (with no regard to weather it would be cancelled or not depending on sales of products) ought to buy the products advertised during that show" I didn't like the qualification in B that "if the show would be cancelled" because I thought the conclusion was more general, saying that just as a safe measure (just in case it were the case that the show you think is worth preserving could be cancelled) you should take at least some actions to reduce that likelihood by buying the products because if everyone felt this way a majority of the audience could be buying the products.
I know B is more encompassing in that it has the whole issue about one person doing something because it is necessary for a majority to do it, but like I said, why the stipulation that "if a show would be canceled?" Does the person who feels that the show is worth preserving need to know that this indeed is the case? Sorry if my thought process is confusing.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Notice that every answer choice but (D) has that stipulation and even answer choice (D) does mention the idea of a show getting canceled, but I agree the stipulation in answer choice (D) is different.

The reason why the stipulation is okay is that in the stimulus the argument says that if people generally fail to buy the products advertised during their favorite shows, these shows will soon be canceled. The argument is talking about shows that would be canceled and so the stipulation is perfectly acceptable.

Also, to your second question, and maybe the glitch that's holding you up from seeing this clearly is that answer choice (B) does not require knowledge on the part of the viewers that that show would be canceled.

Does that help clear this up?

[linzru86]

ohhhh ok. yes it does. and I see that with B now, too. thanks!

[peg_city]

Could on the geeks go into more insight into why B is superior to A? I chose A because in the conclusion it says 'Anyone', while in B says 'everyone who feels that the show is worth preserving ought to take those actions'

Thanks very much

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

chose A because in the conclusion it says 'Anyone', while in B says 'everyone who feels that the show is worth preserving ought to take those actions'

Remember that those two words mean exactly the same thing on the LSAT.

I agree they don't have the exact same connotation, though they are very similar. "Anyone" sounds singular which feels like it puts answer choice (A) in the lead.

But on further inspection there's a very serious error in answer choice (A). The trigger in answer choice (A) is not the same as it is in the stimulus. In the stimulus it uses the phrase "people generally fail to buy the products advertised." This is about the actions of many, not about the action of one. In answer choice (A), at the point where it says "one took certain actions" the answer choice no longer illustrates the principle.

In answer choice (B) however, it says "unless many people took certain actions." This matches the stimulus.

Hope that helps! But let me know if you still have questions on this one.

[zainrizvi]

Is it safe to use this "bridge the gap in reasoning" answer types of conforming question? I thought they would be generally applied to justification questions.

The reason I ask is because couldnt you eliminate (D), not on the fact that it doesnt bridge the gap, but the fact that it doesnt mention that the particular show would be canceled. There is no necessity/threat in (D). In a sense, it doesn't match up with the evidence provided which is about TV shows that COULD be cancelled.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

couldnt you eliminate (D), not on the fact that it doesnt bridge the gap, but the fact that it doesnt mention that the particular show would be canceled. There is no necessity/threat in (D). In a sense, it doesn't match up with the evidence provided which is about TV shows that COULD be cancelled.

Great point zainrizvi!

The evidence is an "if/then" relationship - and answer choice (B) contains this relationship in the trigger, whereas answer choice (D) does not.

To your bigger point about how to interpret "conform" and it's impact on your approach. We're not just trying to bridge the gap here. There is a gap in the argument and we are trying to find this, but it's more like a Necessary Assumption than a Sufficient Assumption. So an incorrect answer may justify the conclusion, but may not conform or be illustrated by the reasoning.

Principle questions are essentially like a unique form of 4 common question types; Inference, Sufficient Assumption, Necessary Assumption, and Match the Reasoning. Use what you know about correct/incorrect answers on these question types when setting up your expectations from the answer choices.

Hope that helps!

[wguwguwgu]

Matthew (or another Ms./Mr. Geek) PLEASE HELP!

I think I'm really confused now.

I thought D is wrong not because it is "sufficient but not necessary" but because it's "necessary but not sufficient"?

I still don't see why "if one feels ...worth preserving" is a problem -- this is the exact wording in the conclusion that we want to justify?

Isn't the problem rather in the latter half: " at least take SOME ACTION". This is for sure necessary but not sufficient to get us to the action that the conclusion is talking about?

And I thought "conform to principle" questions should look for a sufficient rather than necessary answer? Was I wrong all the time...?

Huge thanks in advance!

[timmydoeslsat]

Matthew (or another Ms./Mr. Geek) PLEASE HELP!

I think I'm really confused now.

I thought D is wrong not because it is "sufficient but not necessary" but because it's "necessary but not sufficient"?

I still don't see why "if one feels ...worth preserving" is a problem -- this is the exact wording in the conclusion that we want to justify?

Isn't the problem rather in the latter half: " at least take SOME ACTION". This is for sure necessary but not sufficient to get us to the action that the conclusion is talking about?

And I thought "conform to principle" questions should look for a sufficient rather than necessary answer? Was I wrong all the time...?

Huge thanks in advance!

I am not officially a geek, but I do think of myself as an LSAT geek in general.

Here is how I would approach this.

The question stem of reasoning most closely conforms to a principle is much like a necessary way the author manuevers in making the argument. I would not think of it as a sufficient assumption question stem. That would be appropriate on the principle justification question stem.

The reason is as follows:

You could simply use a premise in the argument that already exists and use that to conclude something validly. That would definitely be a sufficient assumption to make.

For instance,

John wants to buy a dog. John has been looking to buy one for over two weeks. But John wants to a buy a dog with only fun colors. Therefore, John should not buy a purple dog.

A sufficient principle in this argument could be: if anyone looks to buy anything for over a week, one should not buy that thing in purple.

But that is not the reasoning used in this argument. It does not conform to the reasoning although that answer choice would make the argument instantly valid.

In the stimulus, we are told that:

TV shows ---> Ad funding ---> Many people buy the products

That is a general look of the reasoning used in the stimulus. If ~many people buy the products, we would not have the tv shows.

However, the conclusion reached is rather forceful. It is telling us that anyone who feels a tv show is worth preserving ought to buy the products.

This conclusion is really about calling out the free riders in society. "Yes, it is my favorite show, but I will let others buy the products."

This principle is forcing us to take action into our own hands.

A) would be canceled unless one took certain actions? We do not have that information. We are told that if many do not take certain actions. Does not conform.

B) Love it. Tells me that many people taking an action is necessary for the tv show to exist, and that everyone ought to take the actions. Anyone = everyone in this context. They are not different. Anyone who believes in something = everyone who believes in something.

C) I do not like how this does not say "feels that the show" instead it says if the show is worth deserving. And whatever actions are necessary...we are told about this one necessary action, not more on top of this.

D) This does not help me enough. Take at least some actions to reduce the likelihood? So I can write an email to the TV show executive explaining how much I love the show.

E) Those who feel most strongly? What about that anyone claim in regard to those with feelings?

[nflamel69]

I generally treated these conforming principle questions more like meth of reasoning questions. Basically the principle would describe how did the author use it's premise to support it's conclusion. And the answer would be something that describes the connection between the premise and conclusion. Am I wrong?

[jen8538]

Okay, this question has really had me stumped. I have read everyone's posts a dozen times. I am confused with how to "bridge the gap". It seems that answer B really supports the premise in the argument rather than the conclusion. Is that why B is correct? The question asks us about the "author's reasoning" rather than the author's conclusion? I would really appreciate any help. Thanks!

[dukeag]

Okay, this question has really had me stumped. I have read everyone's posts a dozen times. I am confused with how to "bridge the gap". It seems that answer B really supports the premise in the argument rather than the conclusion. Is that why B is correct? The question asks us about the "author's reasoning" rather than the author's conclusion? I would really appreciate any help. Thanks!

This question still has me stumped too, which is why I revisited it even after mulling over it a couple of times. But after reading all of the posts I am finally coming to a slow understanding.

The "author's reasoning" includes how the author got to his/her conclusion. One way he/she got to this conclusion was through first building on some premises. B justifies the way the premises are used to support the conclusion by connecting them in a better way. Remember, most of the correct answers on the LSAT are not just focused on the conclusion. More often than not, they fill in the gap between the premises and the conclusion.

The conclusion says that ANYONE who feels that a TV show is worth preserving should buy products advertised during that TV show.

But the premises used to support this conclusion is not strongly connected to the conclusion, and it is our job to find the gap. The premises say that advertisers will not pay for commercials to air during a TV show unless many people watching buy the advertised products...As a result of advertisers not paying for the commercials, the shows which are no longer paid for by advertisements will soon be canceled.

But I think there is an assumption going on here. The premises say that if advertisers will continue to pay for commercials that means that MANY people will have bought the advertised products. But then why does that automatically mean that you, part of the "anyone" group, the individual viewer who feels the TV show is worth preserving, should also buy the products? After all, couldn't I just depend on all of the viewers to do it?

I think this also sort of happens whenever presidential elections are held in America. Why should I vote? Yeah, we will lose our democratic freedoms if most people don't vote...bla bla bla...but why can't I just freeload and let other people fulfill their duty as citizens so that I don't have to?

You see, the premises do not explicitly connect to the conclusion, but just sort of assumes that because of the premise, the conclusion just automatically follows. B explains this gap, or this assumption, which mirrors the reasoning of the author. If a TV show would be canceled unless many people bought that advertised product(premise), then(conclusion) everyone and anyone who feel that the TV show is worth preserving should buy those products.

[jen8538]

That is really helpful. Thanks!

[mcervantesucb]

I incorrectly answered A. However, after reviewing, I noticed that "A" has the phrase "unless one took certain actions" meaning that one person's actions can prevent a tv show from being canceled which makes the statement false. The stimulus states that it takes "many people" for a tv show not to be canceled.

[Aquamarine]

I still don't get why D is incorrect.

The principle I thought was
Premise: Not buy-> cancel
Conclusion: feel worth preserving-> buy.
So the gap is feel worth preserving-> NOT cancel

So that's why I chose D. But the answer is B. And I can't still find out why D is wrong and B is an answer.
Am I missing something?
Please someone explain me why D is incorrect and B is an right.

Thanks!

[andrewgong01]

I am still not sure if I udnerstand why "D" can be ruled out.

The principle in the stimulus is that If many people do not start buying products then the show is cancelled. Hence ONE (singular) should start buying the stuff if one does not want the show to go away.

To me "D" captures this rather indirectly. "D" is saying 'reduce the likelihood' ; however, isn't that what the argument really revolves around from a broader perspective. The argument is telling individuals you should go buy the product? Why ? Because if many people don't buy the product then the show is going away. However you can only control yourself and what you do and by buying the product you are not saving the show since you are not the group but you are doing your part in buying the product which reduces the likelihood of the show being cancelled since you make up a part of the required sales tally to keep the show going


Would we say "D" is wrong because it did not explicitly say we need many people to do this one thing ? But doesn't "reduce the likelihood" get that across and imply this is a group thing where individuals don't solve it fully but play a role in solving it ?

[ohthatpatrick]

Ask yourself, for a sec, "Why does LSAT think that (B) is a better answer than (D)?"

I think the answers you come up with are the real 'problem' with (D). (B) is better.

On Principle questions, we're looking for rules that perform the function of
"If Premise, then Conclusion"

The premises talked about "a TV show would be canceled unless many people took certain actions", as it says in (B).

The premises did NOT talk about "one feeling like a TV show is worth preserving".

(D) is more dealing with the internal logic of the conclusion, while (B) is giving a principle that connects the "reasoning", the move from premise to conclusion.

(B) captures the whole conclusion in its THEN-condition, so it also has the luxury of bringing in more of the argument to its IF-condition.

(D) feels more like it's just quizzing on us whether we can accept "buying products in the hopes that your favorite show doesn't get canceled" = "an action that would reduce the likelihood that the show will be canceled".

Even though I agree with how you're thinking that "my vote for candidate X" reduces the likelihood that "candidate X is defeated", you're doing more work with synonym stretching than principle questions expect out of us.

We just want a bridge from PREM to CONC, and that's what (B) provides.

[ZarkaS555]

I answered this question correctly but answer choice C tripped me up. Am i right in thinking that it goes a step too far for the argument? We are being asked to come up with a principle that most closely conforms to the argument and in saying that one should do "whatever necessary", C opens up a range of possibilities and goes beyond what the argument is saying?

Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, you're exactly right. Since we're trying to conform, we're hoping to match the premise-to-conclusion move with the appropriate strength of wording.

(A) and (C) are too strong.

(A): "if even one person failed to take a certain action, the TV show would be canceled" = too strong

(C): "everyone should take WHATEVER actions are necessary" = too strong/ too broad / too sweeping (we should show up at the TV station and bribe them with brownies?)

------------------

(D) and (E) are too weak, not specific enough:

(D): "everyone should take AT LEAST SOME actions" = too vague, and the "if" half comes from the conclusion, not from the premises as we would hope.

(E): "those who FEEL MOST STRONGLY" ??? = too specific / too narrow. The conclusion is about EVERYONE who thinks it's worth preserving.