PrepTest 122, Section 1, Question 20
The people most likely to watch a televised(57 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(14 more words not shown)
- Awatching an exciting(10 more words not shown)
- Bthe voting behavior(16 more words not shown)
- Cthere are differences(10 more words not shown)
- Dpeople's voting behavior(16 more words not shown)
- Epeople who are(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A debate can matter beyond the people who watch it.
The author focuses on the audience: committed viewers probably already have a candidate, and uncommitted viewers usually don't settle who won. But someone can start with a preference and change it after a strong performance by the other candidate. And an undecided viewer might later hear a report declaring a winner.
There could be other effects too. A good performance might prompt supporters to donate, or generate favorable coverage reaching people who never watched. The argument's conclusion is about winning an election, so the immediate reaction of the live audience isn't the entire question.
What we’re looking for
We're asked what the argument overlooks. I'd look for a way winning the debate could help a candidate's election chances despite those facts about viewers. We don't need to show every debate changes the result. We need a relevant effect the author's account leaves out.
Working the answers
- A
This is tempting because support and actual voting are different. Someone might favor a candidate without turning out. But A concerns an exciting debate, not winning a debate. Excitement might bring out supporters of both candidates, and it need not be produced by the winner. It doesn't establish the benefit of winning that the conclusion dismisses.
- BCorrect
Reports about the debate can influence voters who didn't watch it. A report presenting one candidate as the winner could therefore help that candidate with people outside the audience the argument describes.
Those nonviewers needn't fit the author's account of committed viewers or undecided viewers. Even if the debate does little to change its immediate audience, the later reporting provides another route by which winning could help someone win the election.
- C
Different standards for deciding who won could explain disagreement about the result. But disagreement over the label doesn't show that being viewed as the winner improves a candidate's election prospects. We need a consequence of winning, not just another fact about how people judge the performance.
- D
Unpredictable reactions to particular comments could affect voting, but the answer doesn't connect those reactions to an advantage for the debate winner. A losing candidate might make a comment that attracts votes, or the winner might make one that loses votes. B gives us a clearer route from reported victory to electoral benefit.
- E
Supporters voting even when their candidate loses fits the author's view that debates do little to change committed voters. It doesn't show how winning improves a candidate's chances. E describes loyalty surviving defeat, rather than an overlooked benefit of victory.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.