LSAT 133 – Section 3 – Question 10

LSAT 133 - Section 3 - Question 10

June 2011

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:58

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
PT133 S3 Q10
+LR
Main conclusion or main point +MC
A
91%
164
B
2%
150
C
1%
156
D
2%
153
E
4%
158
134
142
151
 +Medium 147.69 +SubsectionMedium

Editorial: Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising persuades people that they need certain consumer goods when they merely desire them. However, this accusation rests on a fuzzy distinction, that between wants and needs. In life, it is often impossible to determine whether something is merely desirable or whether it is essential to one’s happiness.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Critics complain that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs, but this complaint relies on making the difficult distinction between wants and needs. In reality, it can be nearly impossible to determine whether something is merely a want or a genuine need.

Identify Conclusion
Critics' complaints about advertising require making a distinction between wants and needs, which is almost impossible.

A
The claim that advertising persuades people that they need things that they merely want rests on a fuzzy distinction.
This is a good summary of the editorial’s argument. The editorial contends that the claim made by critics of consumerism—that advertising tricks people into confusing wants with needs—“rests on a fuzzy distinction” because wants and needs are almost impossible to distinguish.
B
Many critics of consumerism insist that advertising attempts to blur people’s ability to distinguish between wants and needs.
This sentence provides context for the stimulus. It introduces the position that advertising causes confusion between wants and needs, setting the stage for the editorial’s counterargument that distinguishing between wants and needs is not as clear-cut as critics suggest.
C
There is nothing wrong with advertising that tries to persuade people that they need certain consumer goods.
The editorial does not make this argument because the editorial does not judge advertising itself. Instead, the editorial critiques the reasoning of consumerism’s critics, particularly the critics’ assumption that it is possible to distinguish between wants and needs clearly.
D
Many critics of consumerism fail to realize that certain things are essential to human happiness.
This is not a flaw in the critics’ reasoning that the editorial addresses. The editorial challenges the assumption that it is possible to clearly distinguish between wants and needs, not whether critics recognize the existence of needs or things “essential to human happiness.”
E
Critics of consumerism often use fuzzy distinctions to support their claims.
The stimulus only offers one example of critics using fuzzy distinctions, so we cannot conclude that critics “often” do this. Since the stimulus doesn’t fully support this claim, it cannot be the main conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 133 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply