PT11.S2.Q18 - the format of network television news

bSM45LSAT

This is a NA question, and I when I was doing this question I read answer choice D), and I immediately crossed it off even though when I kept reading it seemed correct, simply because it said "network television news reports" instead of PROGRAMS.

Anyone else kind of frustrated with this question?

Maybe JY explained it, not sure as I'm not completely done the NA old problem sets.

DumbHollywoodActor

I think the difficulty of this problem is the sheer size and number of sub-conclusions (and therefore gaps for necessary assumptions to rear their ugly little heads). There’s no context. It’s wall-to-wall argument. (D) is the NA between the premise "the format of network tv news programs generally allows advocates of a point of view only 30 seconds to convey their message.” and the sub-conclusion "Regular watchers become accustomed to thinking of issues in terms only of slogans and catch phrases.”

I don’t think it matters whether you’re talking about the report vs. the program. Semantics on the LSAT usually comes in the form of “small” words like “some” “most” “always” and “possible vs. usual”. (C), which is probably the other answer you were looking at, is not wrong because it uses “television” instead of “television news programs”. It’s wrong because the POSSIBILITY of nuanced presentation doesn’t destroy the argument. Where as (D) is more acceptable than (C) because if it’s USUAL for a reporter to add more info, then the argument is wrecked.

This is tricky to explain, but then again, so is the LSAT. Please let me know if you need more clarification.

bSM45LSAT

Hmm thanks for the explanation.

Idk sometimes I just phase myself out on these NA questions. Reading D I thought it was right because I thought if this IS true does it wreck the argument? And it does, and therefore I need to block it so save the argument.

Then I looked at the start and thought reports? Hmm seems weird, then proceeded to read C and all of a sudden I thought it's gotta be right, almost out of desperation.

I've found it really helps if before reading the answer choices you try to guess the NA yourself, and usually in the easier questions or medium ones I can get it, it's just with the harder questions it's so damn difficult. I'm hoping there isn't a lot of these harder NA questions, as I'm not that good at them, even though I'm currently drilling 228 NA questions from the Cambridge drill packets.

The packets rate the Q in terms of difficulty, and ever since I've hit the hardest level I can't seem to get them all right, I'd say I get maybe 60% right.

DumbHollywoodActor

NAs are super hard BECAUSE you can’t really predict them. It’s forced me to spend a lot of time in my review drilling negating NA answer choices in my head. It just has to be automatic. You really have to develop a flexibility that I’ve only been able to cultivate during blind review. I’d probably still get this wrong in real time. There’s just so many things you gotta keep in your head for this one because of the multiple subsidiary conclusions.

But again, this is a curve breaker question because it expects us to know that given this particular argument, the lack of something being possibile isn’t necessary, only the lack of it being usual. But it makes sense that it would be on the LSAT because lawyers argue over nuances like that all the time. Remember @"J.Y. Ping” ’s MALPRACTICE story. This is what the test is ultimately designed to do.

bSM45LSAT

Haha I do remember that story.

Yeah unfortunately I'm just not getting these tougher NAs no matter how hard I try. I'm aiming for 160s in the actual thing, so if I see a NA I will skip it unless I get it. But I can usually tell how hard the NA is, like some of these harder ones the NA is so damn subtle, so idk I'm hoping I can afford to skip the harder ones.