PrepTest 131, Section 3, Question 10
Producer: It has been argued that, while the(63 more words not shown)
The producer's conclusion is properly(9 more words not shown)
- AIf there is(21 more words not shown)
- BPublic boycotts could(16 more words not shown)
- CFor any television(12 more words not shown)
- DThere is widespread(11 more words not shown)
- EAny action that(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The proposal is to boycott advertisers of shows that promote violence and erode the country's values. I might first question the concern about the shows. What if someone watches the battles in Game of Thrones for entertainment without imitating them? Violent content alone wouldn't settle what viewers do or how their values change. But the producer's objection is different: the proposed boycott would be censorship.
Suppose I choose not to watch football. That is a viewing choice; calling it censorship would need some further explanation. Or imagine someone posts a Minecraft video that attracts no viewers. Its lack of an audience doesn't by itself show that anyone censored it. Those examples make me question how broadly the producer is using the term.
The actual proposal goes further than choosing what to watch: people would boycott advertisers, the advertisers would withdraw their advertisements, and some shows would go off the air. Let's accept that chain. It establishes a restriction in the shows the public can watch. The remaining question is why that consequence qualifies the boycott as censorship.
What we’re looking for
We are asked to make the producer's conclusion follow. Then we need a rule connecting the established consequence to that label: any action that restricts what the public can view is censorship. With that assumption, the boycott would count, regardless of whether we would ordinarily use the term so broadly.
Working the answers
- A
This describes what would happen in the absence of both government censorship and advertiser boycotts. It doesn't say that a boycott itself counts as censorship. Even if one of these activities must occur for viewing options to be restricted, we still need the connection between a boycott's consequences and the producer's label.
- B
A boycott might remove shows that don't promote violence or erode values. That expands the range of shows that could be affected, but it doesn't classify removing them as censorship. The missing step concerns what the action counts as, not which shows it could affect.
- C
A show could have an audience and still lose advertising after a boycott. The existence of viewers tells us neither that the show will remain on the air nor that removing it would be censorship. C doesn't connect the stated chain of events to the conclusion.
- D
People might agree that one program promotes violence and another does not. They might, for example, see a difference between Game of Thrones and Teletubbies. Even complete agreement about which shows deserve that description wouldn't establish that boycotting their advertisers is censorship. Agreement about the targets leaves the classification of the action unsettled.
- ECorrect
The producer says the boycott would lead to fewer shows being available to watch. E says any action with that result is censorship. The boycott therefore meets the supplied rule, which closes the gap between the restriction described in the evidence and the censorship conclusion.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.