Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- 33.5K All Categories
- 28.1K LSAT
- 17.1K General
- 5.2K Logical Reasoning
- 1.4K Reading Comprehension
- 1.7K Logic Games
- 70 Podcasts
- 191 Webinars
- 11 Scholarships
- 194 Test Center Reviews
- 2.2K Study Groups
- 112 Study Guides/Cheat Sheets
- 2.5K Specific LSAT Dates
- 35 November 2024 LSAT
- 18 October 2024 LSAT
- 9 September 2024 LSAT
- 38 August 2024 LSAT
- 28 June 2024 LSAT
- 4 April 2024 LSAT
- 11 February 2024 LSAT
- 22 January 2024 LSAT
- 38 November 2023 LSAT
- 43 October 2023 LSAT
- 14 September 2023 LSAT
- 38 August 2023 LSAT
- 27 June 2023 LSAT
- 30 Sage Advice
- 5K Not LSAT
- 4K Law School Admissions
- 13 Law School Explained
- 10 Forum Rules
- 641 Technical Problems
- 288 Off-topic
Related Discussions
LR Quiz
akistotle
Member ⭐ 🍌🍌
Hi everyone,
As @Sami did recently, I made an analogous argument for an LR stimulus I had troubles with. But I am not sure if I did correctly, so I would like to hear what you guys think. Let me know which answer choice you think is correct 
The playwright’s newest play received a negative review from the city’s most influential newspaper. Therefore, the review will not as positively affect the box office performance in the opening week as would the unpublished review by the other critic, who has been favorable to his previous plays; people who have a negative impression of the play are unlikely to pay the standard ticket price.
The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?
(A) Most theatergoers who see the play on the will do so because of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper.
(B) The unpublished review by the other critic would not have been negative.
(C) Most people who go to see the play and pay the standard ticket price will not have gone to the play as a result of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper.
(D) If the unpublished review written by the other critic were used instead of the review appeared in the city’s most influential newspaper, almost all of who went to see the play would pay the standard ticket price.
(E) Most people who pay the standard ticket price do not miss a performance of the play in the opening week.
Comments
B! Do I get a cookie?
B!
And I know EXACTLY which LR question this is because I remember it took me like 4 mins to get it right under time with going back at the end and was a bitch! lol.
Yaaay @ Akistotle
Great Job.
@LSATcantwin How about a chocolate chip cookie?
They are actually my favorite...I can eat an entire tray to myself with no regret.
https://media.tenor.com/images/c8b3ee7b928f0572190334c33c8b5461/tenor.gif
https://media.giphy.com/media/YovEFrZNGMkF2/giphy.gif
Here are all the cookies for you
I'm fairly confident I have this original question in my notes. Nice job with the example above. I believe you have constructed a problem that contains a similar assumption.
Necessary Assumption Question
Premise: The playwright’s newest play received a negative review from the city’s most influential newspaper.
Premise: People who have a negative impression of the play are unlikely to pay the standard ticket price.
Conclusion: Therefore, the review will not as positively affect the box office performance in the opening week as would the unpublished review by the other critic, who has been favorable to his previous plays.
(A) We don't know why they are going to see the play; out of scope.
(B) Correct!! Plus this passes the negation test.
(C) Same reasoning as A; wrong.
(D) This isn't necessary to assume. This is tricky though. I can't think of a good reason to eliminate this one...Can anyone give some insight here?
(E) We don't know this! Totally out of scope.
The word "unpublished" caught my attention. How could it affect something if no one read about it? So I was anticipating for something along those lines. The answer choices unfortunately didn't have that, but here's my analysis of the answer choices:
(A) We don't know the reason most people went to see the play. Maybe most of those theatregoers went because they live nearby. Who knows. It's also possible that these theatregoers' decision to see the play were not at all affected by the review.
(B) If the unpublished review had been negative, we can't definitely say, without additional information at least, which negative effect is greater, thereby hurting our argument. The unpublished review has to be at least a little more positive than the review by the most influential newspaper. This is correct.
(C) It's possible that most people went to see the play because of the review by the influential newspaper. Just because the review is not as positively affecting the box office performance does not mean most people cannot go see the play because of the review.
(D) This gives us a conditional statement. We don't have anything to trigger the sufficient condition, and we also don't know whether the necessary condition would follow.
(E) Most people who pay the standard ticket price can have many other characteristics too, not just not missing a performance of the play in the opening week. They can love to read newspapers, watch TV, etc. None of these are necessary for the argument.
Thank you everyone for answering and thank you very much for great explanations, @btownsquee and @dml277!
My analogy may have been too similar to the original question. I first tried to analogize to cats or some animals but then I could not make wrong answer choices. lol
P.S. Here you go, @LSATcantwin
https://media.tenor.com/images/e953d3999f84ac639994d8f71ca6a7a4/tenor.gif
@dml277 It didn't register in my mind that C is a conditional statement. This is a really good point. Thanks!
Does making analogous argument help?