PrepTest 133, Section 2, Question 11
When a major record label signs a contract(69 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(39 more words not shown)
- AIt is the(8 more words not shown)
- BIt is one(14 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(12 more words not shown)
- DIt describes a(11 more words not shown)
- EPremises are used(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The label puts money into the band before knowing whether the records will sell. If the band becomes a huge success, the investment pays off. If it doesn't, the label could lose money. I can see why taking that gamble might entitle the label to some of the upside.
That's the argument's destination: it is fair for the label to take a large share of the profits. The claim we're asked about helps the author get there. Because the label pays for videos, artwork, management, and promotion, the band doesn't have to carry nearly as much financial risk itself. That reduced risk for the band is then offered as a reason the label deserves its share.
What we’re looking for
Notice the claim's two jobs. Look backward: the list of expenses supports it. Look forward: it supports the fairness conclusion. We might debate how large a share would be fair, but the role question only asks how this claim fits into the reasoning. It is a conclusion along the way, as well as a reason for the final conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
It isn't the only conclusion. The author uses the band's reduced risk to reach a further judgment: a large share of the profits is fair compensation for the label. A stops the reasoning too early and leaves out that final step.
- B
The two conclusions are directly related. The band assumes less risk, and for that reason the label may fairly take a large share. We aren't using the expense list to make two independent points; one point becomes support for the next.
- C
This isn't a general rule being applied to a particular band. That would look more like, 'Anyone who takes the financial risk deserves a large profit share; this label took that risk for this band; therefore it deserves that share.' The actual claim describes the band's reduced risk, and the conclusion remains a general judgment about major-label contracts.
- D
The author does explain why the band faces less risk, but the argument doesn't end with that explanation. The risk claim is then used to justify the label's profit share. D leaves out that important forward-looking role and incorrectly treats the rest of the argument as an explanation of the risk reduction.
- ECorrect
The label's payments support the claim that the band faces less financial risk. That claim, in turn, supports the main conclusion that the label's large share is fair. Having both support behind it and a further conclusion ahead of it makes this an intermediate conclusion.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.