#20 - Historian: Radio drama requires its listeners to think

[annabelle.swift]

I understand why E is incorrect, but I have some reservations about D.

I negated D to "For today's generation of TV viewers, something (podcasts, for example) fill the gap left by radio as a medium to exercise imagination." I thought that IF this new medium of entertainment was as popular as radio had been, then yes, the conclusion would be weakened. However, we don't know that this new medium IS as popular as radio had been. We only know that it filled the gap in the media landscape as something that exercises consumers' imaginations. We don't know that it filled the gap in terms of popularity as well.

If podcasts exercised imaginations but were super unpopular compared to radio, then today's generation would still exercise their imaginations less frequently. The conclusion would not be weakened. Where did my thinking go wrong?

[atierney]

Hi, I like your negation, and if you follow the logical extension of that negation, then the argument fails, right? So, the idea is that there is a gap, and that this gap causes individuals to use their imagination less. However, if something, anything, fills the gap, then the gap no longer exists. Your reasoning had you fighting the very negation you that correctly made. You wanted to consider whether that gap was actually filled or how it could possibly be filled. Not only was this extra, unnecessary work, but it also went against a central tenet of taking the LSAT: Don't fight the premises or assumptions! Assume the truth and use them as indivisible in constructing a logical argument. If you do this, then it is clear that the negation destroys the argument, where the argument hinges upon there being a gap.

Let me know if you have further questions.

[benndur]

Hi PowerScore,

If instead of "Television drama does not require its viewers to think about what they see."

D) was modified to,

"Television drama does not require its viewers to think about what they see as much as radio drama does."

Wouldn't this satisfy the question as an assumption required by the historian’s argument?

I understand that E) is incorreect, but I am confused because the replies given above seem to be conflicting:

evelineliu said,

"(E) is irrelevant because the distinction the historian draws is that TV viewers actually see the images and don't imagine them. TV viewers thinking about the images is not at issue."

while Admin said,

"Answer Choice (E): While this answer choice Strengthens the argument, it is far too strong to be an assumption required for the conclusion to be true."

Admins answer seems to suggest that viewers thinking about what the images they see is at issue, it's only that the statement is too strong in that it says Television drama does not require viewers to think at all.

I agree with admin and am not sure I understand evelineliu's comment that the viewers thinking about the images is not at issue, as it seems to be an assumption the Historian makes that Televison Drama requires less thinking.

If Television Drama requires less thinking (as the new dominant form of popular entertainment) AND "nothing fills the gap left by radio as a medium for exercising the imagination" then the logic is complete, but just D alone does not complete the logic, since its possible watching TV, so the extent to which people think about TV drama is at issue?

Could anyone please clarify? Thank you.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi benndur,

Answers can be (and often are) wrong for more than one reason, and Answer E in this question is in fact wrong for more than one reason.

It is true that the absolute wording of Answer E rather than a comparison between television and radio is one reason that this answer is wrong, but there is a second reason.

In the stimulus, notice the argument starts off by stating that "radio drama requires its listeners to think about what they hear." Now the word "think" is a very broad term and could encompass a variety of specific ways of thinking. For example, while watching a movie, you could consider and evaluate its plot, its acting, its special effects, the moral of its story, etc.. These would all qualify as "thinking" about the movie.

However, in the argument, the sentence continues to narrow the focus of "thinking" to "picturing for themselves" what they hear. In other words, the scope of "think about what they hear" in this argument is specific to using their imagination to picture the characters and scenes.

Without narrowing the scope of "thinking" to this specific idea of using their imaginations, Answer E would still be wrong even if it had been worded "Television drama does not require its viewers to think about what they see as much as radio drama does."

The argument in the stimulus is about imagination, and it is certainly possible to think about what one sees on television without specifically exercising one's imagination. Imagination is just one type/way of thinking. For example, some people may be good at analytic thinking but not creative thinking.

If Answer E had stated, "Television drama does not require its viewers to exercise their imaginations about what they see as much as radio drama does," this would be closer to the mark (although even then, this would also require the assumption that today's television viewers are watching television drama (as opposed to other types of shows), which was not stated.