#21- Specific Reference, Must Be True, Expansion

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation
(See the complete passage discussion here: lsat/viewtopic.php?t=14088)

The correct answer choice is (A)

Here we are asked to identify the answer choice containing the statement that best extends the passage. To generate a prephrase for this question, consider what function the last paragraph played. In that paragraph, the author disagreed with the Marcusian view, claiming that rational, informed adults are able to recognize manipulative advertising techniques, and do not simply fall for them. Further, although consumers do not necessarily get the specific satisfaction promised by an advertisement, the author points out that consumers may still use the product purchased as a way to achieve another sort of fulfillment.

The correct answer choice will continue along this line of thought, a critique of the Marcusian view as based on a false assumption and flawed in its position regarding the effect of advertising on modern society. Do not try to prephrase precisely what the correct answer choice will be. Instead, move to the answer choices with the function and main point of the last paragraph in mind.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice because it expresses a conclusion that would naturally result from the contents of the last paragraph, essentially turning the statements in the final paragraph into support for this answer choice.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because the author would disagree with the statement that the Marcusian claims are “rationally justified.”

Answer choice (C): The author tells us that informed, rational adults are not tricked by advertising, so it is not clear that the author would say that there are abuses in advertising.

Answer choice (D): Here, the answer choice is incorrect because the author does not provide evidence of the “numerous social benefits” of advertising.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice starts off well. However, the author’s position focused on rational, informed adults, not the irrational and/or uninformed adults who are manipulated by advertisements. We actually do not know what the author’s view is regarding those folks, and we cannot say that the author would reach the conclusion described here.

[gintriag]

The correct answer is (A). I can slightly see that the other answers goes beyond the scope of the passage, so logically they don't fit as a completion of the passage. But, answer (A) states that 'Marcusian critique does not provide such grounds'. I think Marcuse claim such grounds but his mistake is just to 'assume the majority of consumers who respond to advertising do not do so autonomously'. In the first 3 paragraphs, his opinions are clear: lines (4) to (15) and lines (16) to (17).

Thanks,

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi gintriag,

Great question. Here, "does not provide such grounds" really should be read as, "does not provide adequate/accurate grounds." If you re-read it in that context, does this make sense? If so, I think it might have just been an issue of not fully parsing the meaning of the answer choice.

[gintriag]

Yeap. It definitely makes sense. Thank you very much!

[snowy]

I chose answer E instead of A, although those were the two I was going back and forth between. I thought answer choice A was a bit outside the scope of the passage since I didn't see a mention of detriments to society as a whole in the passage. Rather, the author seemed to focus more on individuals. Meanwhile, for E, the passage does refer to economic power, especially in lines 13-14. Even though this question refers specifically to the last paragraph, it still seemed as though the answer should remain within the scope of the passage as a whole. I read the explanation above about why E is wrong, but why can't we assume the author's position on the people unable to distinguish real vs. false needs? The passage explicitly states the author's position on people who are able, and seems to imply enough to support E.

Thank you in advance for your help with these issues!

[James Finch]

Hi Snowy,

The big problem with (E) is that it makes an assertion about what Marcuse's critiques are, namely that there is a specific critique "that advertisers exert economic power over those few people who are unable or unwilling to distinguish real from false needs." The passage raises in paragraph 4 the point that most people don't react irrationally to advertising, but uses real-world studies, not Marcusian analysis, as evidence for that point. In fact, the passage implies that Marcusian analysis assumes that people are all subconsciously swayed by advertising into making irrational decisions, which would make the quoted section of (E) above false.

Contrast that to (A), which uses the Marcusians' mistaken assumption about the effectiveness of advertising as a premise to invalidate the Marcusian critique as a whole. This works perfectly with the passage's last paragraph, arguing as it does that consumers make informed choices and aren't unreasonably manipulated by advertising.

Hope this helps!

[snowy]

Thank you so much, James! This cleared it up for me!

[180bound]

I want to reiterate a concern by another poster about this question. I am failing to see how the last paragraph could give support for the claim :while in principle there might be grounds that advertising is detrimental to society..." The paragraph only really argues that advertising may not necessarily be beneficial but no where does it suggest (that I can see) that advertising is detrimental to society. Because this is a must be true question, I applied the fact test and ultimately avoided this answer because I did not find the proper support for it. Could someone help me please?
Thanks!

[momgoingbacktoschool]

I want to reiterate a concern by another poster about this question. I am failing to see how the last paragraph could give support for the claim :while in principle there might be grounds that advertising is detrimental to society..." The paragraph only really argues that advertising may not necessarily be beneficial but no where does it suggest (that I can see) that advertising is detrimental to society. Because this is a must be true question, I applied the fact test and ultimately avoided this answer because I did not find the proper support for it. Could someone help me please?
Thanks!

I still have the same problem with A. I also still don't see why E is wrong. I feel like answer E qualified itself enough to be correct when it says "those few people". The fourth paragraph discusses "majority of consumers" and "most adults" which in my mind leaves "those few people".

Thank you.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi 180bound and mom,

You're both taking too harsh a stance with respect to answer choice A. We're looking for an answer that would "most logically" complete the passage. It's true we categorize that as a Must Be True, but it's not the hard and fast form of Must Be True (where we need an answer that 100%, logically irresistibly) follows directly from the passage. Instead, this is the Most Strongly Supported form of a must be true question. That means the Fact Test may not be directly satisfied (it's possible we do not find a direct reference to each of the answer choice's terms or phrases). Instead, we're looking for an answer that we can infer with the highest level of certainty from the passage.

That we "might have grounds" to say advertising is, in principle, "detrimental to society" can be inferred from the fact that the author never actually directly opposes the notion that advertising has some potentially negative impacts (that it may be oppressive or manipulative or hegemonic). Rather, the author's critique of Marcuse is more specific than that--the author rejects Marcuse's distinction between real and false needs. The author doesn't believe advertising creates false needs, because people retain their autonomy ("[a]dvertising techniques are unable to induce unwilling behavior in rational, informed adults, and regulations prohibit misinformation in advertising claims"). The author doesn't go any further than that, and certainly doesn't suggest advertising is, for those reasons, per se good. So, consistent with answer choice A, the author allows for the possibility of a negative impact of advertising--just not the kind of negative impact Marcuse and his followers imagine.

James hit the nail precisely on the head above, where he notes that answer choice E is a false description of what the author claims Marcusians argue. Answer choice E says, "its [Marcusian critique's] claim that advertisers exert economic power over those few people who are unable or unwilling to distinguish real from false needs," but the passage doesn't describe Marcusian critique that way. Rather, the author thinks Marcusian critique claims that everyone is subjected to false needs created by advertising ("If Marcusians are right, we cannot, with any assurance, separate our real needs from the alleged false needs we feel").

I hope this helps!