PrepTest 107, Section 4, Question 5
Political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream rarely(92 more words not shown)
The explanation offered by the(8 more words not shown)
- Atelevision station executives(8 more words not shown)
- Bbland and innocuous(9 more words not shown)
- Cpolitical analysts outside(14 more words not shown)
- Dmost television viewers(17 more words not shown)
- Ethe political opinions(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A talk show can avoid controversial politics even if its executives privately have strong political opinions. Their customers may matter more to the programming decision than their personal beliefs do.
The author says stations pursue a large audience and therefore air bland, inoffensive political discussion. I understand the idea of not alienating viewers. But would blandness actually attract them? A program could avoid offending anyone and still be too boring for anyone to watch. So I'd want to connect this kind of political content with the broad appeal the stations are seeking.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for an assumption in that explanation. My prediction is that the mild political discussion appeals to viewers rather than merely putting them to sleep. That isn't the only possible gap in the argument, though. We'll need to see what each answer actually connects.
Working the answers
- A
Executives could have political agendas and keep those agendas separate from decisions about talk-show content. The argument gives an economic explanation for the programming; it doesn't need the people in charge to lack political views or goals of their own.
- BCorrect
This identifies a different gap from the one I initially noticed. The opening observation concerns views outside the mainstream, but the explanation ends by saying that the views aired are bland and innocuous. The author treats those bland views as generally mainstream.
That connection is needed for the explanation to reach the original observation. If bland, inoffensive analysis were generally outside the mainstream, explaining why stations choose blandness wouldn't explain why they so rarely air views outside the mainstream. B links the description at the end to the pattern the author set out to explain.
- C
We don't need to know how much outside-the-mainstream analysts care about affecting viewers. They might care very much or very little. The explanation concerns stations choosing content to attract an audience, not the analysts' attitudes toward the effect of their own work.
- D
Avoiding a show isn't the same as arguing that its views shouldn't be allowed to be expressed. Viewers could strongly support allowing every political opinion on television while choosing which programs to watch. The station's concern about audience size doesn't require most viewers to favor suppressing views they dislike.
- E
Economic motives and executives' political opinions could happen to point toward the same programming. Explaining the choice through economics doesn't establish that the resulting views rarely match the executives' views. Also, E concerns the stations' television shows broadly, while the passage addresses talk shows. Neither the required lack of overlap nor the broader claim is necessary to this explanation.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.