Cisco
CompTIA
ISC
EC-Council
EXIN
Fortinet
ITIL
Juniper
Microsoft
VMware
Avaya
SAP
Google
NVIDIA
Salesforce
Amazon
Palo Alto Networks
ISC2
Splunk
ServiceNow
All Vendors
  2. Home
  3. Exams
  4. Test Prep
  5. LSAT Test

Test Prep LSAT Test Exam
Law School Admission Test: Logical Reasoning, Reading Comprehension, Analytical Reasoning (Page 21 )

Updated On: 19-Jan-2026
Page 21 of 188
PDF with 934 Questions

Political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream rarely are found on television talk shows, and it might be thought that this state of affairs is a product of the political agenda of the television stations themselves. In fact,

television stations are driven by the same economic forces as sellers of more tangible goods. Because they must attempt to capture the largest possible share of the television audience for their shows, they air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people. As a result, political opinions and analyses aired on television talk shows are typically bland and innocuous.

An assumption made in the explanation offered by the author of the passage is that

  1. most television viewers cannot agree on which elements of a particular opinion or analysis are most disturbing
  2. there are television viewers who might refuse to watch television talk shows that they knew would be controversial and disturbing
  3. each television viewer holds some opinion that is outside the political mainstream, but those opinions are not the same for everyone
  4. there are television shows on which economic forces have an even greater impact than they do on television talk shows
  5. the television talk shows of different stations resemble one another in most respects

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

The author concludes that political opinions on TV talk shows are bland and innocuous.
Why is that? Not, as some might think, because the TV stations have their own political agenda. According to the author, it's because stations air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people, and that's because the stations are driven by economic forces. If you look at this author's conclusion, that the talk shows are innocuous, and then look at the reason why, because the stations are trying to appeal to lots of people, then you can spot a missing link: that only bland opinions appeal to lots of people. That works as a central assumption in this argument. A prephrase similar to this will help you attack the answer choices.
When you do, option [there are television viewers who might refuse...] should jump out. For the author's argument to work, he must assume that some viewers would not watch something they found controversial. If that were not the case, and everyone tunes in even when something is controversial, then stations could run these programs and still hope to gain as many viewers as possible.



Political opinion and analysis outside the mainstream rarely are found on television talk shows, and it might be thought that this state of affairs is a product of the political agenda of the television stations themselves. In fact, television stations are driven by the same economic forces as sellers of more tangible goods. Because they must attempt to capture the largest possible share of the television audience for their shows, they air only those shows that will appeal to large numbers of people. As a result, political opinions and analyses aired on television talk shows are typically bland and innocuous.

The explanation offered by the author of the passage makes the assumption that

  1. television station executives usually lack a political agenda of their own
  2. bland and innocuous political opinions and analyses are generally in the mainstream
  3. political analysts outside the mainstream are relatively indifferent to the effect their analyses have on television viewers
  4. most television viewers are prepared to argue against allowing the expression of political opinions and analyses with which they disagree
  5. the political opinions of television station executives are not often reflected in the television shows their stations produce

Answer(s): B

Explanation:

Same argument. The author says that opinions outside the mainstream aren't on the talk shows, and concludes that TV stations' drive for large audiences makes the shows bland and innocuous. In the last question, we found one missing piece, and option [bland and innocuous political opinions...] provides another: that bland political opinions are within the mainstream. If they aren't, then why would bland TV appeal to the mainstream? Notice how effectively this assumption links the evidence (no views outside the mainstream on talk shows) with the conclusion (the drive for audience share makes talk shows are bland and innocuous).



Some judges complain about statutes that specify mandatory minimum sentences for criminal offenses. These legal restrictions, they complain, are too mechanical and prevent judges from deciding when a given individual can or cannot be rehabilitated. But that is precisely why mandatory minimum sentences are necessary. History amply demonstrates that when people are free to use their own judgment they invariably believe themselves to act wisely when in fact they are often arbitrary and irrational. There is no reason to think that judges are an exception to this rule.

Which one of the following sentences most accurately expresses the main point of the passage?

  1. People believe that they have good judgment but never do.
  2. Mandatory minimum sentences are too mechanical and reduce judicial discretion,
  3. Judges should be free to exercise their own judgment.
  4. Judges are often arbitrary and irrational.
  5. Mandatory minimum sentences are needed to help prevent judicial arbitrariness.

Answer(s): E

Explanation:

Some judges think that minimum sentences are too restrictive, as they prevent judges from exercising discretion in certain matters. "But," (note the Keyword) the author says this is precisely the problem. So the author must believe that judges shouldn't have the power to make certain kinds of decisions. The rest of the stimulus backs up the notion that judges act arbitrarily when left on their own. So minimum sentences, which remove this discretion, are a good thing after all. E. captures this point.



Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower is so small that the species is headed for extinction. However, this wildflower can cross-pollinate with a closely related domesticated daisy, producing viable seeds. Such cross-pollination could result in a significant population of wildflower-daisy hybrids. The daisy should therefore be introduced into the wildflower's range, since although the hybrid would differ markedly from the wildflower, hybridization is the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower in its range.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the conservationist's reasoning?

  1. It is better to take measures to preserve a valued type of organism, even if those measures are drastic, than to accept a less valuable substitute for the organism.
  2. It is better to preserve a type of organism that is in danger of extinction, even if surviving organisms of that type are not vigorous, than to allow something more vigorous to replace it.
  3. It is better to change a type of organism that would otherwise be lost, even if the changes are radical, than to lose it entirely.
  4. It is better to destroy one of two competing types of organisms, even if both are irreplaceable, than to allow both of them to be lost.
  5. It is better to protect an endangered type of organism, even if doing so has some negative effects on another type of organism, than to do nothing at all.

Answer(s): C

Explanation:

Here's another sad story. The wildflower can't survive without hybridization, but making a wildflower-daisy hybrid would result in a plant that is markedly different from the wildflower. The conservationist is in favor of the hybridization anyway? What principle supports that resolution? We're looking for something that says a hybrid version of the flower is better than no flower at all, and that's what option [It is better to change a type of...] provides. Option [It is better to change a type of...] perfectly supports the notion that a changed wildflower is better than no wildflower, so it serves as the justifying principle we seek.



Conservationist: The population of a certain wildflower is so small that the species is headed for extinction. However, this wildflower can cross-pollinate with a closely related domesticated daisy, producing viable seeds. Such cross-pollination could result in a significant population of wildflower-daisy hybrids. The daisy should therefore be introduced into the wildflower's range, since although the hybrid would differ markedly from the wildflower, hybridization is the only means of preventing total loss of the wildflower in its range.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the conservationist's reasoning depends?

  1. The wildflower currently reproduces only by forming seeds.
  2. The domesticated daisy was bred from wild plants that once grew in the wildflower's range.
  3. Increasing the population of the wildflower will also expand its range.
  4. Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able to reproduce.
  5. The domesticated daisy will cross-pollinate with any daisy like plant.

Answer(s): D

Explanation:

Now we need to find an assumption in the same argument. Remember, the author supports hybridization because it will produce viable seeds and lots of flowers. But is that enough? If those flowers themselves cannot reproduce (the denial of option [Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able.]), then the wildflower is doomed anyway. So the conservationist must be assuming option [Wildflower-daisy hybrids will be able.]



Viewing page 21 of 188
Viewing questions 101 - 105 out of 934 questions



Post your Comments and Discuss Test Prep LSAT Test exam prep with other Community members:

Join the LSAT Test Discussion