Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 112 - Section 4 - Question 12
October 17, 2013
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that Henry was popular because it followed That’s Life and not because people actually liked it. This is evident in the fact Henry was relatively unpopular before it was scheduled to follow That’s Life, and unpopular again once it was moved to a different time spot.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that Henry itself didn’t change in a way that attracted a larger audience (i.e. better writing, better acting, more compelling storylines) after it was moved to follow That’s Life. The author also assumes that Tuesdays aren’t a particularly strong day for TV shows in general. If this were the case, then Henry’s popularity could be explained by the day of the week it was scheduled on, rather than by the show that preceded it.
A
Henry has been on the air for three years, but That’s Life has been on the air for only two years.
We don’t care how long That’s Life had been on air for. We care about Henry’s popularity over the years.
B
The show that replaced Henry on Tuesdays has persistently had a low number of viewers in the Tuesday time slot.
This weakens the claim that Henry was popular because of its Tuesday time slot. We’re looking to do the opposite.
C
The show that now follows That’s Life on Tuesdays has double the number of viewers it had before being moved.
Tuesday after That’s Life is a great time slot for shows. Henry improved its numbers, as did this other show. This strengthens the claim that the time slot, rather than the show, is what matters ratings-wise.
D
After its recent move to Wednesday, Henry was aired at the same time as the second most popular show on television.
This might explain why Henry did poorly on Wednesday. But we have no idea if a similar phenomenon was happening when Henry was aired on Tuesday, so we can’t draw any conclusions from this.
E
That’s Life was not widely watched during the first year it was aired.
We don’t care about That’s Life. We know it ended up being popular.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 4 - Question 22
October 17, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 22
October 17, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 27 - Section 4 - Question 14
October 17, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 104 - Section 4 - Question 14
October 17, 2013
Summary
After 1712, all new books legally published in a certain country were approved by a censor.
Under the first censor, 50% of the manuscripts submitted to the censor were approved for publication.
Under the second censor, 75% of the manuscripts submitted to the censor were approved for publication.
Under both censors, the number of manuscripts that were approved was the same.
Under the first censor, 50% of the manuscripts submitted to the censor were approved for publication.
Under the second censor, 75% of the manuscripts submitted to the censor were approved for publication.
Under both censors, the number of manuscripts that were approved was the same.
Very Strongly Supported Conclusions
The overall number of manuscripts submitted was higher under the first censor than under the second. This is the only way that the number of manuscripts approved could be the same, but the proportion of manuscripts approved smaller under the first censor.
A
More books critical of Country Y’s government were published before the appointment of the first censor than after it.
We don’t know whether any manucripts were critical of the government or whether the number that were critical were higher or lower under the first censor. Don’t assume that if the censor didn’t approve, the manuscript was critical.
B
The first censor and the second censor prohibited the publication of the same number of book manuscripts.
False, because the first censor prohibited a higher number than the first. The second censor prohibited 25%, while the first prohibited 50%. If the number approved was the same for both censors, then the overall number submitted was higher under the first. 50% of a bigger number is larger than 25% of a smaller number.
C
More book manuscripts were submitted for approval to the first censor than to the second.
Must be true, because 50% were approved under the first, and 75% were approved under the second, but the number approved was the same. For example, let’s say number approved was 6. 50% of 12 submitted = 6 approved. 75% of 8 submitted = 6 approved. 12 is greater than 8.
D
The second censor allowed some book manuscripts to be published that the first censor would have considered critical of Country Y’s government.
Not supported, because we have no idea whether the same kinds of manuscripts were submitted to the second censor. There could be a different set of manuscripts about different subjects and raising different concerns.
E
The number of writers who wrote unpublished manuscripts was greater under the first censor than under the second.
We don’t know anything about the number of writers. We only know about the number of submissions from writers. One writer can submit multiple manuscripts.
Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 25 - Section 4 - Question 20
October 17, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 102 - Section 4 - Question 20
October 17, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 17
September 10, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 18
September 10, 2013Sign up to star your favorites LSAT 69 - Section 4 - Question 19
September 10, 2013The stimulus has the economists proposing an argument that buying lotteries tickets is dumb. Why? Because on average, you pay in way more than you take out.
The author argues that the economists are wrong. What's his argument?
He says that buying lottery tickets are analogous to buying insurance (tickets, if you will). How are they similar? Because on average, you pay in way more than you take out.
Okay, that's all well and good. Let's remember that this is an argument by analogy so we need to show where insurance isn't like the lottery.
What are you buying with insurance? You're paying more on average than you take out of it. So what are you buying? You're buying *insurance*. You're buying protection from risk, that if by some terrible stroke of misfortune, you should get hit by a car, you'll be financially covered.
What are you buying with lotteries? You're buying a chance to win some large amount of money.
Since we know that this is an argument by analogy, you have to point out where this argument isn't analogous. That's what (E) does. (E) tells that people value protection from risk way more than they value the chance to win a lot of cash. Well, if that's true, then the author's analogy doesn't work so well anymore.
(D) is the attractive answer choice. But it's wrong because (1) we don't care about the "grand" prize and (2) simply knowing odds doesn't matter much - we also have to know the amount to be weighed against those odds.