PrepTest 119, Section 4, Question 14
Some critics claim that the power of the(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe argument launches(18 more words not shown)
- BThe argument takes(27 more words not shown)
- CThe argument takes(30 more words not shown)
- DThe argument, instead(15 more words not shown)
- EThe argument takes(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the public's range of opinions already reflects the media's influence?
The author says the media would have too much power if they offered a narrower range of opinions than the public holds. Then we learn that this narrower range doesn't exist, and the author declares the critics wrong. But offering at least as broad a range doesn't necessarily show that the media's influence is acceptable.
Imagine the media helping shape the range of opinions people hold. Then media opinion and public opinion might line up because of that influence, not because the media lack excessive power. That's my first concern: the matching ranges don't settle how the relationship developed.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to identify a flaw. I'd look for an explanation of why ruling out the author's stated problem doesn't establish that the critics' broader concern is false. My initial reaction focuses on the possible influence behind the matching opinions; the answer may describe the underlying mistake in more general terms.
Working the answers
- A
The author doesn't attack the critics personally. There is no claim that we should dismiss them because of their character or background. Instead, the author offers a test involving the range of opinions and misuses that test.
- B
A range of opinions being available doesn't establish that each opinion gets the exposure it should. But the argument doesn't have to assume that claim about appropriate exposure. Its reasoning specifically turns on whether the media's range is narrower than the public's, not how much attention each view deserves.
- CCorrect
Map the two claims carefully. The first is 'the media present a narrower range than the public holds.' The second is 'the media have too much power.' The author says the first would establish the second, then assumes that because the first is false, the second must be false too.
That doesn't follow. The narrower range is one condition under which the author says the critics would be right; it hasn't been established as the only possible basis for their concern. Excessive influence could exist for another reason. C captures that broader mistake, even though my first objection described one possible way the matching ranges could arise.
- D
Mentioning public opinion isn't the same as appealing to its popularity as proof. The argument doesn't say, 'Everyone agrees the media are fine, so they must be fine.' It compares the range of views in the media with the range held by their consumers.
- E
The argument needn't assume that broad exposure is desirable. It gives a conditional test for excessive power and then incorrectly treats failure of that test as disproving excessive power. E introduces a value judgment about exposure without identifying that reasoning error.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.