PrepTest 101, Section 3, Question 13
Health officials claim that because the foods and(27 more words not shown)
The claim by health officials(5 more words not shown)
- Athe eating and(19 more words not shown)
- Bseeing some foods(25 more words not shown)
- Cthe food and(24 more words not shown)
- Dtelevision viewers are(19 more words not shown)
- Ethe eating and(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Seeing a food on television could make you want it. Picture a character enjoying cookies and a soda: a viewer might start thinking about having a similar snack. The familiar popcorn-and-drink promotion before a movie is built around the same possible response.
That makes the health officials' claim sound plausible. But the link still needs to be there. What if viewers notice the foods on screen and make exactly the same eating choices they would have made anyway? Then a program could show lots of nutritionally poor food without worsening those viewers' diets.
What we’re looking for
The premise concerns what people see or hear about; the conclusion concerns what they choose to consume. For the assumption question, I'd look for the missing connection between those two things: seeing the foods makes viewers more likely to eat or drink similar things. We don't need a claim that every viewer copies every meal. We need the influence the officials are relying on.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns why the eating habits were put into the programs: to reflect the audience's existing habits. The officials' claim concerns what those depictions do to the audience afterward. A writer could choose a meal for realism, comedy, or another reason, and the depiction could still influence viewers. The proposed effect doesn't require this particular design goal.
- BCorrect
This connects exposure to consumption. If seeing or hearing about those foods makes people more likely to consume similar ones, the poor nutritional value of the foods being featured can matter to viewers' diets. Without that influence, the officials would have a fact about television content but no stated reason to conclude that watching it worsens dietary habits.
- C
A food company doesn't have to pay for a program for its food depictions to influence people. A scriptwriter might include a snack simply because it fits the scene. Financing and advertising motives concern how the food ended up on screen, not whether viewers respond to seeing it. The argument needs the latter connection.
- D
Viewers could be interested in characters with very different diets from their own. They might even be tempted to try a food because an unfamiliar character makes it look appealing. The claim about influence doesn't require interest to be limited to characters who already eat exactly as the viewers do.
- E
Influencing a choice isn't the same as giving health officials accurate forecasts of which foods will become popular. Television could make some viewers more likely to choose certain foods while many other factors make popularity difficult to predict. The conclusion concerns an effect on dietary habits, not a dependable forecasting method.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.