LSAT 144 – Section 3 – Question 16

LSAT 144 - Section 3 - Question 16

October 2015

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:17

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT144 S3 Q16
+LR
+Exp
Weaken +Weak
Causal Reasoning +CausR
A
18%
155
B
2%
156
C
1%
152
D
3%
154
E
76%
164
144
152
160
 +Medium 145.106 +SubsectionEasier

Evidently, watching too much television can lead people to overestimate the risks that the world poses to them. A recent study found that people are more likely to think that they will be victims of a natural disaster if they watch an above-average amount of television than if they do not.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that watching too much TV leads people to overestimate risks. Her evidence is a study showing a positive correlation between people who watch more TV than average and people who believe they’ll be victims of natural disasters.

Notable Assumptions
Based on a mere correlation, the author concludes that watching too much TV causes people to overestimate risks. She thus assumes the opposite isn’t true (i.e. worrying about risks causes people to watch more TV), or that overestimating risks and watching TV aren’t jointly caused by some third factor. She also assumes that people who believe they’ll be victims of natural disasters believe the same about other risks the world presents. For example, if these people were less inclined to believe they’ll be the victims of violent crime, then the study wouldn’t help the author’s argument.

A
Many people overestimate the dangers that the world poses to them, regardless of the amount of television they watch.
Even if most people overestimate risk, watching too much TV might still be something that leads people to overestimate risk.
B
A person is less likely to live in an area that is prone to natural disasters if that person watches an above-average amount of television than if that person watches a below-average amount of television.
This seems to strengthen the author’s argument. People who watch lots of TV are less likely than average to be at risk of suffering a natural disaster, yet they believe themselves to be more at risk than average.
C
People who watch a below-average amount of television tend to have a fairly accurate idea of the likelihood that they will be victims of a natural disaster.
We don’t care about people who don’t watch much TV. We already know they’re less likely than people who watch lots of TV to believe they’ll be the victims of natural disasters.
D
People who are well informed about the risks posed by natural disasters tend to have become well informed in some way other than by watching television.
We don’t care about people who accurately estimate the risk posed by natural disasters. We need to weaken the link between watching lots of TV and overestimating risk.
E
A person is more likely to watch an above-average amount of television if that person lives in an area that is prone to natural disasters than if that person lives in an area that is not.
People who watch lots of TV have good reason to worry about natural disasters: they’re more likely than most people to live in areas prone to natural disasters. Thus, they might not be overestimating the risk of natural disasters at all.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 144 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply