#24 - A survey of a city’s concertgoers found that almost

[lsatninja]

I see that why A is wrong here, just because they were told about the sponsorship, we do not know whether they were influenced by that or not, so there's still a gap.

For me, I had a different logic for E - I thought maybe currently it is local musicians who play music which promotes local culture and music but if they built a new one it will bring popular musicians who might not be the prefered musician that the local concertgoers want, but I guess there's too much gap here as well?

For D - Just because it was "well-publicized", how do we know for sure that the concertgoers knew about this plan and actually supports the idea? So there's also a GAP.

so for me this question is wrong cause all of A,D, E have gaps!

Can someone explain why my logic for E won't work?

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi LSATNinja! Happy to explain why answer choice (E) doesn't resolve the paradox in the stimulus

In the stimulus, we're presented with two conflicting facts:
Fact 1: Almost all city concertgoers responding to a survey are unhappy with the local concert hall because they want wider seats and better acoustics.
Fact 2: Most of these same survey respondents do not want the current hall torn down and replaced, even though a new hall would need to be built to accommodate wider seats and better acoustics.

To resolve the paradox, we want to find an answer choice that explains how both of these facts can be true at the same time.

Answer choice (E) explains a potential reason for building a new concert hall in the city. However, the answer choice does not provide an explanation for why the survey respondents are both unhappy with the current hall yet do not want to have it torn down and replaced. From the facts presented in the stimulus, we do not know why the survey respondents do not want the current hall to be torn down and replaced; all we know is that the survey respondents want wider seats and better acoustics. Giving a potential reason for building a new concert hall does not explain why the survey respondents don't want the current hall torn down, though.

Although the explanation you've provided for answer choice (E) explains a reason for why the survey respondents would both want a new hall and want to keep the current hall, it does so by looking at a factor that is not mentioned in the stimulus. From the information given in the stimulus, we don't know whether the performers visiting the venues has an effect on the survey respondents' opinions on the current hall; the musicians who visit the new hall vs. the current hall may not influence their opinions at all.

On the other hand, answer choice (D) provides an explanation for why the survey respondents both want an improved concert hall but do not want to tear down the existing hall. If there is a well-publicized plan to keep the current structure but build a new concert hall, then this gives us a reason why the respondents do not want the current hall torn down: there's a possibility that the city government will convert the current structure and still build a concert hall that satisfies the survey respondents' wishes, which is the best of both worlds. If this plan that is already in place goes through, then there will be two benefits: a new auditorium, and a better concert hall. We can assume that at least some, if not most, of the survey respondents know about this plan since it's described as "well-publicized."

Since answer choice (D) gives an explanation for how both facts in the stimulus can be possible, this is the correct answer choice. Answer choice (E), on the other hand, does not provide an explanation for how both facts can be true at the same time.

I hope this helps, and let me know if you need any further clarification!

[lsatninja]

Thanks a lot, Beatrice, it clarifies for me!

Hi LSATNinja! Happy to explain why answer choice (E) doesn't resolve the paradox in the stimulus

In the stimulus, we're presented with two conflicting facts:
Fact 1: Almost all city concertgoers responding to a survey are unhappy with the local concert hall because they want wider seats and better acoustics.
Fact 2: Most of these same survey respondents do not want the current hall torn down and replaced, even though a new hall would need to be built to accommodate wider seats and better acoustics.

To resolve the paradox, we want to find an answer choice that explains how both of these facts can be true at the same time.

Answer choice (E) explains a potential reason for building a new concert hall in the city. However, the answer choice does not provide an explanation for why the survey respondents are both unhappy with the current hall yet do not want to have it torn down and replaced. From the facts presented in the stimulus, we do not know why the survey respondents do not want the current hall to be torn down and replaced; all we know is that the survey respondents want wider seats and better acoustics. Giving a potential reason for building a new concert hall does not explain why the survey respondents don't want the current hall torn down, though.

Although the explanation you've provided for answer choice (E) explains a reason for why the survey respondents would both want a new hall and want to keep the current hall, it does so by looking at a factor that is not mentioned in the stimulus. From the information given in the stimulus, we don't know whether the performers visiting the venues has an effect on the survey respondents' opinions on the current hall; the musicians who visit the new hall vs. the current hall may not influence their opinions at all.

On the other hand, answer choice (D) provides an explanation for why the survey respondents both want an improved concert hall but do not want to tear down the existing hall. If there is a well-publicized plan to keep the current structure but build a new concert hall, then this gives us a reason why the respondents do not want the current hall torn down: there's a possibility that the city government will convert the current structure and still build a concert hall that satisfies the survey respondents' wishes, which is the best of both worlds. If this plan that is already in place goes through, then there will be two benefits: a new auditorium, and a better concert hall. We can assume that at least some, if not most, of the survey respondents know about this plan since it's described as "well-publicized."

Since answer choice (D) gives an explanation for how both facts in the stimulus can be possible, this is the correct answer choice. Answer choice (E), on the other hand, does not provide an explanation for how both facts can be true at the same time.

I hope this helps, and let me know if you need any further clarification!

[HarmonRabb]

I wrongly went for B even though I felt it was lacking a bit, I thought it was a better reason than D. It seems like both B and D require a bit of a leap on our part to complete the reasoning in the survey respondents minds. Why is it though that the leap is too big to make B the answer but OK for D?

Consideration for B:
Fact: A group of citizens opposes the demolition of the stadium.
Complete the thought: It would seem reasonable that the survey respondents would side with them.

Consideration for D:
Fact: People know that the local government are CONSIDERING a plan to repurpose the stadium and build a new one.
Complete the thought: If the respondents know the municipality is considering a plan to bring a solution to the problem, they will support it and prefer that option because

In both cases we don't have the full picture. Why would the respondents care about the wishes of the local residents and why would the respondents care that the municipality has a different plan?
Why is it that the leap is too big when assuming reasons to support local residents in B but assuming support for city's plan in D is OK?

[Adam Tyson]

I think you may be overlooking an important aspect of the survey in this stimulus, HarmonRabb: the respondents (who are concertgoers, regardless of where they live) almost all are unsatisfied with the concert hall, and yet most of these same people don't want it to be torn down. It's not about people who live nearby. It' s about how this group of people could simultaneously hold what appear to be conflicting opinions. These people don't like it, but they don't want to tear it down? Why not?

Answer D provides a solution to the problem. If there is a well-publicized plan to solve the problem in some other way, besides tearing the building down and building a new one, that might explain why these people hold these two opinions at once. The opinions no longer present any conflict! We don't need to make any leap or assumptions, because this answer, by itself, gives us a reasonable explanation for the supposedly conflicting beliefs. We don't have to assume that they want the alternative. We just have to recognize that the existence of the alternative means the apparent conflict isn't as much of a problem as it first appeared to be.

Answer B does nothing, because we have no way of knowing whether the people who live in the area were or were not included in the survey of concertgoers, and it tells us nothing about how most concertgoers could have two apparently contradictory opinions.