#5 - Some people believe that advertising is socially

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point-FIB. The correct answer choice is (C)

This stimulus contains a very simple argument with clear structural indicators. It begins with the common “some people say” rhetorical device, in which the author presents an argument, attributed to some other individual or group, with which the author disagrees. In this case, “Some people believe that advertising is socially pernicious,” because “it changes consumers’ preferences.” Essentially, the advertising overcomes a consumer’s will, and causes consumers to “want” things they do not actually want.

To counter this view, the author raises another mechanism by which an individual’s preference is changed, but that is not perceived to be pernicious—classes in music and art appreciation. The author points out that these classes “change people’s preferences for various forms of art and music,” but there is “nothing wrong” with them.

In this Main Point—Fill in the Blank question, our prephrase is that, based on the analogy between advertisements and the art and music appreciation classes, the fact that advertisements change peoples’ preferences does not by itself make advertisements pernicious. Note that this prephrase matches our intuition from the use of the “some people say” device, from which we would infer that the author disagrees with the belief of some people that advertising is socially pernicious.

Answer choice (A): The author did not deny that advertising changes people’s preferences, so this answer choice is inconsistent with argument.

Answer choice (B): We prephrased that the author disagrees with the view that advertising is socially pernicious. This answer choice runs counter to the author’s conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, because the author, by analogy, established another circumstance in which changing a consumer’s preference is not bad. So while there may be some other problem with advertisements, the author would conclude that changing someone’s preference is not, by itself, evidence that advertisements are bad.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice goes too far. Just because the author would not say that changing consumers’ preferences is bad does not mean that the changes to their preferences produced by advertising are positive.

Answer choice (E): The author does not deny that advertising change people’s preferences.

[mayank_vaishya]

Hello,

Just one question- what is the type of reasoning involved here ? Its not causal or conditional . Is there a third category or a residuary category of type of reasoning ?

[Adam Tyson]

There are many other types of reasoning in the LSAT, mayank_vaishya! Those include, but may not be limited to, arguments by way of:

Examples
Analogy
Process of Elimination
Extension (carrying an argument to an extreme case)
Appeals to Authority

This one is a case of argument by analogy, comparing advertisements to music and art appreciation classes. The author thinks the two cases are similar enough to be persuasive.

[mab9178]

Hi

Regarding answer-choice D, in other forums, some LSAT experts argue that there are two reasons for its elimination.

First, as it is commented in this forum but stated in my own words: something with which "nothing is wrong" is not the same as this very thing is "positive," because "positive" is narrower descriptive range in that it does not encompass the "neutral" state that is included within the range of the description "nothing is wrong." In other words, "positive" and "nothing wrong" are not equivalent because the latter could be positive, but it could also be neutral, whereas the former is strictly positive and therefore cannot be neutral!

The second explanation for eliminating D, in other forums, is that answer-choice D is conditional in nature. However, I feel that this second explanation is a problematic, because I feel that if D had stated, "if advertising changes consumers' preferences, it generally does so without harm" as opposed to what it does say, "if advertising changes consumers' preferences, it generally does so in a positive way," it would've been correct.

My reasoning is that ultimately the point of the analogy is the implication/consequence of changing people's preferences, which, according to the stimulus, is not bad (there's nothing with it). But it does not say "without harm," it says "in a positive way," which therefore leads us right back into the first explanation!

In retrospect, I disagree that that the conditional nature of answer-choice D, in itself, is not enough to eliminate D; it is the fact that the consequent of "changing the preferences" of the stimulus, not pernicious, does not equate to "positive," which takes us back into the first explanation!

Am I wrong? Is the conditional nature of D is sufficient to have it eliminated?

Thank you

[mab9178]

Hi

Regarding answer-choice D, in other forums, some LSAT experts argue that there are two reasons for its elimination.

First, as it is commented in this forum but stated in my own words: something with which "nothing is wrong" is not the same as this very thing is "positive," because "positive" is narrower descriptive range in that it does not encompass the "neutral" state that is included within the range of the description "nothing is wrong." In other words, "positive" and "nothing wrong" are not equivalent because the latter could be positive, but it could also be neutral, whereas the former is strictly positive and therefore cannot be neutral!

The second explanation for eliminating D, in other forums, is that answer-choice D is conditional in nature. However, I feel that this second explanation is a problematic, because I feel that if D had stated, "if advertising changes consumers' preferences, it generally does so without harm" as opposed to what it does say, "if advertising changes consumers' preferences, it generally does so in a positive way," it would've been correct.

My reasoning is that ultimately the point of the analogy is the implication/consequence of changing people's preferences, which, according to the stimulus, is not bad (there's nothing with it). But it does not say "without harm," it says "in a positive way," which therefore leads us right back into the first explanation!

In retrospect, I disagree that that the conditional nature of answer-choice D, in itself, is [in previous post I incorrectly added "not"] enough to eliminate D; it is the fact that the consequent of "changing the preferences" of the stimulus, not pernicious, does not equate to "positive," which takes us back into the first explanation!

Am I wrong? Is the conditional nature of D is sufficient to have it eliminated?

Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

I agree with your analysis here, mab9178! The conditional nature of answer D is not what makes it a bad answer, because this question could have very easily had a correct answer that was conditional. Yours would have worked. I also considered in my prephrase looking for something like "if advertising is indeed pernicious, it is not because it changes consumers' preferences." Dismissing D simply because it is a conditional statement and the argument was not, itself, conditional is, in my humble opinion, an inadequate analysis. Good for you for catching that!