PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 1
Moralist: TV talk shows are contributing to the(88 more words not shown)
The moralist's and the TV(15 more words not shown)
- ATV talk shows(3 more words not shown)
- Bpeople's moral standards(2 more words not shown)
- CTV talk shows(8 more words not shown)
- DTV talk shows,(9 more words not shown)
- Eit is wrong(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does watching someone behave badly make me want to behave that way too? I might watch a sensational guest and think, 'I don't want to be like that.' The moralist offers a possible influence of television, but I'd want more support before accepting the claim about a country's moral decline.
The host challenges that same connection. Notice the 'if' in 'if there is such a decline.' The host leaves open whether the decline exists and denies that talk shows cause it. We don't have to establish the true cause to recognize that response.
I'm less convinced by the host's defense that people want to watch. Imagine someone selling a dangerous product. The fact that customers want it wouldn't, by itself, show that providing it causes no harm. Giving people what they want and contributing to a problem could happen together.
What we’re looking for
Now the question asks where the speakers disagree. I'd look for the causal claim: are these shows contributing to the moral decline? The moralist says yes; the host says no. The later discussion of censorship shouldn't pull us away from that dispute. Someone could dislike a show's effects and still oppose banning it.
Working the answers
- A
The host opposes censorship, but the moralist doesn't say whether the shows should be restricted. Calling something harmful doesn't automatically commit a person to banning it. The moralist could value allowing the shows despite the criticism, so we don't have opposite positions on A.
- B
The host says 'if there is such a decline,' leaving the possibility open. That isn't a claim that moral standards have stayed the same. The response disputes the proposed cause of a change, rather than clearly denying the change itself.
- C
The moralist does claim that viewers' ideas about what is normal are affected. But the host doesn't clearly deny all influence on those ideas. A show could influence a fashion norm, for example, without causing a moral decline. Denying the moral consequence isn't enough to assign the host a denial of C's broader claim.
- DCorrect
This puts the shared issue and the opposed positions together. The moralist says presenting these guests makes viewers accept immoral behavior and contributes to decline. The host explicitly says that any decline isn't because of the shows.
We don't need to decide who has the better argument. We need a claim one affirms and the other rejects, and D supplies that claim.
- E
The host defends letting viewers choose. The moralist discusses what viewers come to believe after watching; that doesn't tell us whether the moralist thinks allowing their choice is wrong. As with censorship, don't turn a criticism of the shows' effects into a position the speaker never states.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.