I highly suggest taking a stab at answering the question on your own before even watching the video by using the quickview feature. It has helped me drastically and shows me how much I'm understanding the lessons without being walked through
I just am having a hard time understanding when it's okay to make inferences.
I don't fully understand how by saying that "cable can also offer lower advertising rates than any broadcast network can, because it is subsidized by viewers through subscriber fees" means that we can infer that broadcasts are not subsidized?
We have always been taught not to make assumptions (especially in the Foundations module), so this just doesn't make sense to me.
@Lylas123 I'm late to this but hopefully this answer can help someone else! My assumption (haha) is that making assumptions OUTSIDE the passage is dangerous. Let me try and provide an example.
McFlurries are better than Frostys. McFlurries offer more flavors and are richer in their taste. There are also more McDonalds in the US than Wendys, so it is more accessible to the general public. Additionally, McFlurries have more limited edition flavors, which entices the buyer to purchase more.
An assumption that can be made here is that Frostys have fewer limited edition flavors, and that is a drawback because the consumer wants to try limited edition flavors. That's something reasonable to assume, as it is within the boundaries of the passage. An unreasonable assumption to make however, would be something like "McFlurries are actually worse because the ice cream machine is always broken" or "Actually statistically speaking, there are more Wendys per sq. mile in Johnsonville USA so this statement is incorrect." Both these statements rely on outside knowledge or opinion, both of which aren't relevant to the stimulus. I hope this helps!
Hello! I have a more general question: in terms of making inferences from the passage that are then conducive to choosing the correct answer, how do we know what kind of inferences we CAN make without taking it too far and incorrectly drawing a conclusion? Because these types of questions are dealing with the strength of the support and not absolute validity, there is seemingly some level of inferring needed, and I just wanted to get some clarity/tips about when it’s taken too far. I understand that what we are inferring needs to be rooted in the stimulus, but sometimes, the examples given seem to reach from beyond that.For example, in Lesson 2 (Cable TV Stations) in the MSS section, JY talks through the answer choices and explains how there is some level of inference being made so that we can weed out the one answer that is least supported (this question in particular was an except-type Q). (D) doesn’t seem like a BAD answer choice as a statement that is not really supported, but when JY explained how we need to combine the last sentence with the final claim, that kind of lost me because I’m not sure when to apply this method versus when to not.
Tutor Response
Of all the questions I get as an LSAT tutor, this is by far the most common one. It's really hard to understand what kinds of assumptions/inferences are okay and what kinds are not, and I wish I had a blanket rule for you to make it easier. Really, the answer is that it depends. It depends on a couple things. Firstly, what kind of question are you dealing with? In a question that deals with absolute validity (MBT, MBF, SA, a lot of PSA/Principle), you really aren't able to make any assumptions at all. In a question that doesn't deal with absolute validity (MSS, most weaken/strengthen), then you do have to deal in the world of assumptions. Secondly, it depends on what the other answer choices look like. The one blanket rule I can tell you that is true 100% of the time is that you are looking for the best answer choice. For an MSS question, you aren't looking for the answer choice that you couldn't possibly poke holes in if you tried; you're looking for the answer choice that has the fewest holes in it of the ones available. That's true for every single question on the LSAT—even the ones that are a lot more concrete (like a MBT). There will always be one answer choice that is significantly stronger than the other four. Remember that, if you can identify 4 wrong answer choices, it doesn't matter whether you can identify the one correct one—that's got to be your answer, so pick it and move on.
As far as combining claims to reach a conclusion goes, that strategy comes up a ton on the LSAT. Multiple premises will often need to be read together in order to understand how they might support a conclusion. That's a really important tool in your toolbox!
Initially when reading through the answer choices- I immediately crossed out A as an option. I found myself in the weeds trying to rank the levels of support for the remaining options when I realized that I misread the last line of the stimulus! While skimming the options, my brain filled in "cable Tv station" for "Broadcast networks". Upon rereading option A, I realized my mistake and that the right answer was staring me in the face
This one is really hard. I chose B, and my reasoning was that they "do not rely on subscriber fees" because the broadcast networks have higher advertising rates, since cable has lower ad rates. And therefore, that's how the broadcasts don't rely on subscriber fees, while cable TV does.
A would've been my second choice, honestly, because I thought, "Well, we don't know anything about broadcast networks going worldwide, do we?"
Maybe I would've chosen A first if I'd seen that 'rely' does not equal 'subsidized'.
I'm still trying to convince myself that B is a clearly incorrect answer choice.
@sgs B is incorrect because the line "Cable can also offer lower advertising rates than ANY broadcast network can, because it is subsidized by viewers through subscriber fees" has that "any" in there. If even one broadcast network was taking money from viewers directly then it wouldn't be guaranteed that cable could offer lower advertising rates then them based on this sentence. And if a broadcast network doesn't take any fees from viewers, it definitely can't rely on those fees.
A. Correct: Only mentions "Many cable stations have expanded worldwide with multinational programming." There isn't any mention to multinational programming of broadcast networks.
B. Could be true bc uses cable networks as an example for attracting more ads because they can subsidize costs bc of subscriber fees. It could be support to show that the broadcast networks don't rely on subscriber fees.
C. Could be true bc cable stations & broadcast stations are compared on which is able to attract more advertisers & cable won the comparison. Therefore, many of the examples with lower costs relate to cable networks.
D. Explained in the last sentence.
E. Cable stations are able to target particular audiences with 24-hr news, etc.
#feedback How do you do all of this on test day under time constraints or is it more so just a best practice to do during the learning phase? I find some of the questions come to me intuitively or are pretty straightforward to understand but could see where questions with more dense or obscure information could cause me to slow down and work out some of these steps such as grammar parsing.
Over time, with more practice, the steps he explained will come to you easily and will take less time. For now, focus on solving these problems without time constraints. You want to ensure you understand the questions and their logic. Once you have a good grasp of them, you can apply time constraints.
I got A when I first read over and just wanted to be sure my reasoning was correct so I read the written break down of this question. I could be very wrong but I believe that question A is anti-supported because the passage simply did not discuss viewership in other countries for broadcast networking. The written explanation does not follow what was said in the video.
A is not anti-supported because of the fact that it was not mentioned. Anti-supported means it would be mentioned and actually be directly refuted. Being merely "consistent with" means that it could be true or could be false.
Personally I wouldn't worry too much about this in this example. I think A is more likely to be merely consistent as opposed to anti-supported, but imagine this would be too ambiguous to appear as relevant to a correct answer choice on the test anyway.
As jy points out in the video, the last sentence of the stimulus positions cable's multinational expansion as an advantage over broadcast tv, suggesting broadcast tv has not expanded as such. The difference to me between "expanded" and "can be viewed" is not as wide as he makes out at the end of the video. I think it could be argued as anti-support, and so if the distinction really mattered to a question on the the test they would remove it or make it slightly more explicit.
For me A was a little tricky because on first read, the last sentence sort of seemed to imply that cable was catching up to broadcast by allowing worldwide viewing.
Giving it another read I realized there's not really anything to support that broadcast was viewable or expanding worldwide.
@beneley2k your first paragraph would be a mere assumption. which it seems like you have understood in your second readthrough. there's nothing that says anything about broadcast being in several countries. therefore, it can't really help or go against cable tv having advantages. which is why it's merely consistent, and therefore the least of the 5.
So i'm very happy to say that I narrowed it down to the best 2 answers (A and B), but i am struggling with why B is not correct. I don't see how support is implied for that answer choice. Does anyone have any thoughts?
@DestinyLindsey If you refer to the passage, there is evidence that explains cable stations are "subsidized by viewers through subscriber fees." This is an added example as to why cable stations have advantages. There is no evidence that broadcast networks have subscriptions, so B therefore provides support for cable TV advantages.
Funnily enough, because I don’t know anything about cable or broadcast (I thought they were two names for the same old timely TV just 5 min ago), I read the last sentence as a possible “cable is catching up to broadcast by also going worldwide”. Whereas he read it the other way “cable is doing something broadcast is not doing”. The question does not ever say, but it did make A) easier to identify for me
I did not know what cable and broadcast were I'm ngl. I googled them and it made the question a lot easier--- I think this is fair because the LSAT would normally explain things we aren't familiar with.
70 comments
I highly suggest taking a stab at answering the question on your own before even watching the video by using the quickview feature. It has helped me drastically and shows me how much I'm understanding the lessons without being walked through
@johnsonamirror i tried that and im loving it it helps me understand my process better
I pause the lesson then try to answer the question and when I get it right I could run through a wall like the Kool Aid man
ProTip - click Quick View at the top and you can do the question before the lesson even starts.
Thank you!
This lesson was really well-done!
Loving these new lessons!
So basically find the one that is not supported by the premises
Too young to even know what's the difference between these too, ngl.
I just am having a hard time understanding when it's okay to make inferences.
I don't fully understand how by saying that "cable can also offer lower advertising rates than any broadcast network can, because it is subsidized by viewers through subscriber fees" means that we can infer that broadcasts are not subsidized?
We have always been taught not to make assumptions (especially in the Foundations module), so this just doesn't make sense to me.
@Lylas123 I'm late to this but hopefully this answer can help someone else! My assumption (haha) is that making assumptions OUTSIDE the passage is dangerous. Let me try and provide an example.
McFlurries are better than Frostys. McFlurries offer more flavors and are richer in their taste. There are also more McDonalds in the US than Wendys, so it is more accessible to the general public. Additionally, McFlurries have more limited edition flavors, which entices the buyer to purchase more.
An assumption that can be made here is that Frostys have fewer limited edition flavors, and that is a drawback because the consumer wants to try limited edition flavors. That's something reasonable to assume, as it is within the boundaries of the passage. An unreasonable assumption to make however, would be something like "McFlurries are actually worse because the ice cream machine is always broken" or "Actually statistically speaking, there are more Wendys per sq. mile in Johnsonville USA so this statement is incorrect." Both these statements rely on outside knowledge or opinion, both of which aren't relevant to the stimulus. I hope this helps!
Student Question
Hello! I have a more general question: in terms of making inferences from the passage that are then conducive to choosing the correct answer, how do we know what kind of inferences we CAN make without taking it too far and incorrectly drawing a conclusion? Because these types of questions are dealing with the strength of the support and not absolute validity, there is seemingly some level of inferring needed, and I just wanted to get some clarity/tips about when it’s taken too far. I understand that what we are inferring needs to be rooted in the stimulus, but sometimes, the examples given seem to reach from beyond that.For example, in Lesson 2 (Cable TV Stations) in the MSS section, JY talks through the answer choices and explains how there is some level of inference being made so that we can weed out the one answer that is least supported (this question in particular was an except-type Q). (D) doesn’t seem like a BAD answer choice as a statement that is not really supported, but when JY explained how we need to combine the last sentence with the final claim, that kind of lost me because I’m not sure when to apply this method versus when to not.
Tutor Response
Of all the questions I get as an LSAT tutor, this is by far the most common one. It's really hard to understand what kinds of assumptions/inferences are okay and what kinds are not, and I wish I had a blanket rule for you to make it easier. Really, the answer is that it depends. It depends on a couple things. Firstly, what kind of question are you dealing with? In a question that deals with absolute validity (MBT, MBF, SA, a lot of PSA/Principle), you really aren't able to make any assumptions at all. In a question that doesn't deal with absolute validity (MSS, most weaken/strengthen), then you do have to deal in the world of assumptions. Secondly, it depends on what the other answer choices look like. The one blanket rule I can tell you that is true 100% of the time is that you are looking for the best answer choice. For an MSS question, you aren't looking for the answer choice that you couldn't possibly poke holes in if you tried; you're looking for the answer choice that has the fewest holes in it of the ones available. That's true for every single question on the LSAT—even the ones that are a lot more concrete (like a MBT). There will always be one answer choice that is significantly stronger than the other four. Remember that, if you can identify 4 wrong answer choices, it doesn't matter whether you can identify the one correct one—that's got to be your answer, so pick it and move on.
As far as combining claims to reach a conclusion goes, that strategy comes up a ton on the LSAT. Multiple premises will often need to be read together in order to understand how they might support a conclusion. That's a really important tool in your toolbox!
lowkey had the biggest brain fart answering this question
thank you I take this as a daily English education for me LOL
Initially when reading through the answer choices- I immediately crossed out A as an option. I found myself in the weeds trying to rank the levels of support for the remaining options when I realized that I misread the last line of the stimulus! While skimming the options, my brain filled in "cable Tv station" for "Broadcast networks". Upon rereading option A, I realized my mistake and that the right answer was staring me in the face
Same here.. but I got it correct once I double checked!
Same here!
SAME! I thought it was referring to cable stations. omg so it took me forever to answer this one
I was left with answer choice E and A and I made the executive decision to get it wrong Unfreaken real dawg!
Remember kids:
Always ask: “What exact sentence supports this answer?”
@SwagOD Agreed, that's why I'm left wondering Why B was wrong because where is it implied that B was supported?
would be great if the "show question" window had a highlight tool! i prefer solving the question alone before diving in #feedback
This one is really hard. I chose B, and my reasoning was that they "do not rely on subscriber fees" because the broadcast networks have higher advertising rates, since cable has lower ad rates. And therefore, that's how the broadcasts don't rely on subscriber fees, while cable TV does.
A would've been my second choice, honestly, because I thought, "Well, we don't know anything about broadcast networks going worldwide, do we?"
Maybe I would've chosen A first if I'd seen that 'rely' does not equal 'subsidized'.
I'm still trying to convince myself that B is a clearly incorrect answer choice.
@sgs B is incorrect because the line "Cable can also offer lower advertising rates than ANY broadcast network can, because it is subsidized by viewers through subscriber fees" has that "any" in there. If even one broadcast network was taking money from viewers directly then it wouldn't be guaranteed that cable could offer lower advertising rates then them based on this sentence. And if a broadcast network doesn't take any fees from viewers, it definitely can't rely on those fees.
@ebanta This explanation was very helpful to me seeing why B couldn't be right, thank you
My blind review:
A. Correct: Only mentions "Many cable stations have expanded worldwide with multinational programming." There isn't any mention to multinational programming of broadcast networks.
B. Could be true bc uses cable networks as an example for attracting more ads because they can subsidize costs bc of subscriber fees. It could be support to show that the broadcast networks don't rely on subscriber fees.
C. Could be true bc cable stations & broadcast stations are compared on which is able to attract more advertisers & cable won the comparison. Therefore, many of the examples with lower costs relate to cable networks.
D. Explained in the last sentence.
E. Cable stations are able to target particular audiences with 24-hr news, etc.
I always get down to the last two answers (A & B) and get it wrong. I keep reading the answer choices wrong.
#feedback How do you do all of this on test day under time constraints or is it more so just a best practice to do during the learning phase? I find some of the questions come to me intuitively or are pretty straightforward to understand but could see where questions with more dense or obscure information could cause me to slow down and work out some of these steps such as grammar parsing.
Over time, with more practice, the steps he explained will come to you easily and will take less time. For now, focus on solving these problems without time constraints. You want to ensure you understand the questions and their logic. Once you have a good grasp of them, you can apply time constraints.
I'm gonna need a little more practice with MSS.
im getting it- but so slowly ugh
I got A when I first read over and just wanted to be sure my reasoning was correct so I read the written break down of this question. I could be very wrong but I believe that question A is anti-supported because the passage simply did not discuss viewership in other countries for broadcast networking. The written explanation does not follow what was said in the video.
A is not anti-supported because of the fact that it was not mentioned. Anti-supported means it would be mentioned and actually be directly refuted. Being merely "consistent with" means that it could be true or could be false.
Personally I wouldn't worry too much about this in this example. I think A is more likely to be merely consistent as opposed to anti-supported, but imagine this would be too ambiguous to appear as relevant to a correct answer choice on the test anyway.
As jy points out in the video, the last sentence of the stimulus positions cable's multinational expansion as an advantage over broadcast tv, suggesting broadcast tv has not expanded as such. The difference to me between "expanded" and "can be viewed" is not as wide as he makes out at the end of the video. I think it could be argued as anti-support, and so if the distinction really mattered to a question on the the test they would remove it or make it slightly more explicit.
I believe stimulus says cable expanded, not broadcast expanded to many countries? that is why A is correct
For me A was a little tricky because on first read, the last sentence sort of seemed to imply that cable was catching up to broadcast by allowing worldwide viewing.
Giving it another read I realized there's not really anything to support that broadcast was viewable or expanding worldwide.
@beneley2k your first paragraph would be a mere assumption. which it seems like you have understood in your second readthrough. there's nothing that says anything about broadcast being in several countries. therefore, it can't really help or go against cable tv having advantages. which is why it's merely consistent, and therefore the least of the 5.
So i'm very happy to say that I narrowed it down to the best 2 answers (A and B), but i am struggling with why B is not correct. I don't see how support is implied for that answer choice. Does anyone have any thoughts?
@DestinyLindsey If you refer to the passage, there is evidence that explains cable stations are "subsidized by viewers through subscriber fees." This is an added example as to why cable stations have advantages. There is no evidence that broadcast networks have subscriptions, so B therefore provides support for cable TV advantages.
@LexiSmith04 thanks so much! You’re the best for this!
Funnily enough, because I don’t know anything about cable or broadcast (I thought they were two names for the same old timely TV just 5 min ago), I read the last sentence as a possible “cable is catching up to broadcast by also going worldwide”. Whereas he read it the other way “cable is doing something broadcast is not doing”. The question does not ever say, but it did make A) easier to identify for me
I did not know what cable and broadcast were I'm ngl. I googled them and it made the question a lot easier--- I think this is fair because the LSAT would normally explain things we aren't familiar with.
ur user brings me back to my league phase...i wish i had time to play.. but the lsat is taking up all my time </3
yas mid is calling me. I had to uninstall to lock in for the lsat good luck to you guys
i got it right :))