PT80.S4.Q23 - YXK is currently the television network with the highest overall

siteihuzi

I chose (A) but I really don't understand one thing. Can we say 'the highest overall number of viewers' is comparable to 'more leg injuries, on average, than any other athletes'?

Admin note: minor title edit; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
Admin note: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-80-section-4-question-23/

taschasp

First let's understand why the reasoning is flawed. We can break the argument down like this:

1. YXK is the TV network with the most viewers
2. Out of all of YXK's programs, Bliss has the most viewers
   Therefore,
3. Bliss has the most viewers of ANY program on TV

It's a classic LSAT flaw. We can see why this is just by plugging in some numbers.

Let's say YXK has 10 million monthly viewers, meaning that other TV networks have less -- maybe BNM has 7 million, ERT has 5 million, etc.

Out of YXK's programs, Bliss has the most viewers--let's say, 1 million. So we could say, the second most popular YXK program has 700k viewers, the next has 500k, etc.

Is this enough to conclude that Bliss has more viewers than any program on BNM, ERT, etc.? No -- because that would fail to consider that ERT, for example, might have one really popular program with 1.5 million viewers, more than Bliss's.

So just because a NETWORK is the most popular and a given SHOW on that network is the most popular within that network, doesn't mean that the show is the most popular out of all shows on all network.

˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜
Now, take a look at (A):

1-Soccer players suffer more leg injuries, on average, than other athletes at this university

Okay, this is already in alignment with the first premise in the original argument. The stimulus talks about one TV show having the most viewers out of all TV shows (in the world of TV shows); this talks about soccer players having the most leg injuries out of all other athletes (in the world of athletes at this university)

2-Linda Wilson has suffered more leg injuries than any other soccer player at this university.

This also fits exactly with the stimulus. Bliss has the most viewers out of YXK's programs; Linda has the most leg injuries out of soccer players. YXK is a subset of overall TV shows just as soccer players is a subset of overall athletes at the university. And both are measuring the same variable that was the basis of the first premise (viewers of programs; injuries of athletes)

Thus,

3-Linda Wilson is the athlete at this university who has suffered the most injuries

The flawed conclusion is exactly the same! Bliss has the most viewers of any TV program; Linda has the most injuries of any athlete. Just like how we discussed with the stimulus, Linda might be the most injured athlete out of the most injured sport at the university, but that doesn't mean that there isn't, for example, one softball player who got hit with a bat so hard that she is actually the most injured athlete out of all athletes at the university.

˜˜˜˜˜˜˜˜
What I'm about to add might make this more confusing, and I think the important thing is to get an intuitive sense for the flaw. But in case you want this generalized into abstract language:
Just because, in the world of Q, A has the most X, and B has the most X in the world of A, doesn't mean that B has the most X in the world of Q.

So in the first example:
Q = TV shows
X = having the most viewers
A = YXK Program
B = Bliss

And in the second example:
Q = athletes at a university
X = having the most injuries
A = soccer players
B = Linda Wilson

So the flawed argument goes: In the world of Q, A has the most X, and B has the most X in the world of A; therefore, B has the most X in the world of Q.

Hope this helps!

siteihuzi

Thanks for the comment, but I just want to know that we can ignore "on average". Because the stimulus says "the highest overall number of viewers", but what (A) says is that "more leg injuries, on average,".

Michael.Cinco

@siteihuzi said:
Thanks for the comment, but I just want to know that we can ignore "on average". Because the stimulus says "the highest overall number of viewers", but what (A) says is that "more leg injuries, on average,".

The question stem is most parallels so yeah there is leeway for some differentiation in how the error is formulated. I think ignore is too strong a word because you still need to account for its impact but because it does not get in the way of the flaw in question, the answer choice stands. Further explanation below.

There is a difference in total ammount of viewers and highest ammount of leg injuries on average, one is an average and one is a real value but in both cases the the figures cited is used to make a comparison to other groups whereas the conclusions that both the stimulus and AC A draw are about members of that group relative to other individuals in their respective populations. In both cases the figures cited for that group do not necessarily lead to the conclusion drawn for the individual members. That is the flaw and allows you to meet the criteria of the question stem.

Jay Hawlader

What’s the name of this flaw?

Michael.Cinco

@"Jay Hawlader" said:
What’s the name of this flaw?

Whole to Part