PrepTest 138, Section 3, Question 5
Editorialist: Many professional musicians claim that unauthorized music-sharing(50 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the editorialist's(12 more words not shown)
- Aconcludes that one(10 more words not shown)
- Battempts to promote(13 more words not shown)
- Cattacks a position(12 more words not shown)
- Dtries to show(16 more words not shown)
- Etreats a necessary(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Someone else is taking too much money. How does that make the music-sharing services innocent?
The editorialist accepts that musicians are being deprived of royalties they deserve. Then the argument points to record companies, managers, and other intermediaries taking an unfairly large share of music revenue. That may give musicians another legitimate complaint. It doesn't answer the complaint about services that distribute music for free.
Think of a driver saying, 'Other people were speeding, so you shouldn't blame me.' Even if the accusation about the other drivers is true, it doesn't excuse this driver's conduct. Several people can contribute to a problem.
What we’re looking for
The two practices here aren't even identical: taking too much of sales revenue and allowing listeners to obtain music without paying work differently. But we don't need to resolve every difference to see the flaw. Even if both harm musicians, one party's responsibility doesn't wipe out the other's. That's what I want the answer to describe.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The editorialist uses the intermediaries' unfair revenue cuts to excuse the music-sharing services. But record companies and managers could be blameworthy while the services were also blameworthy. Showing that someone else contributes to musicians' losses doesn't establish that these services contribute nothing or deserve no blame.
- B
The editorialist doesn't argue that a behavior is good because lots of people do it. The number of people using music-sharing services isn't offered as a reason to approve of them. The defense is that other parties take an unfair share.
- C
This would involve rejecting the musicians' complaint because the musicians are supposedly bad people. The argument doesn't attack their character. It instead shifts attention from the services they criticize to other parties who may also be responsible.
- D
We aren't told that believing the musicians' complaint would lead to a bad outcome and therefore the complaint must be false. The editorialist points to the conduct of intermediaries, not to an undesirable consequence of holding a belief. That is a different kind of argument.
- E
No rule gives a requirement for being blameworthy and then treats meeting that requirement as enough. The reasoning concerns how blame is distributed between different parties. Its mistake is assuming that blaming one group clears another, not confusing two directions of a stated condition.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.