LSAT 10 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q1

LR Question 1 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Educational television is a contradiction in terms …

QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption

CONCLUSION: Educational TV is impossible.

REASONING: TV and school are fundamentally different in 3 ways

• Social vs. solitary
• Language vs. visuals
• Fun as a means vs. fun as the end

ANALYSIS: Just because a dog is a mammal and a dolphin looks nothing like it, doesn’t mean that I can conclude that a dolphin can’t be a mammal. I’d actually have to justify that.

In the same way, the author argues that because TV differs from classrooms, it can’t be educational. But why should we assume that only things that resemble traditional schooling can count as educational?

Just because something is different from school doesn’t mean it can’t teach. That’s an assumption the argument makes that needs justification.

___________

1. The author never says fun is bad, just that it should be a means to an end. This misrepresents the argument.
2. CORRECT. This is exactly what the argument relies on: that true education must mimic school. If other environments, like TV, could also be educational despite being different, the argument falls apart.
3. It argues the opposite, that TV is in conflict with school values. This contradicts the author’s premise.
4. There’s no comparison of types of TV shows. The author’s arguing that educational TV is conceptually impossible.
5. This implies that TV could be educational in the future, but the author says it’s a “contradiction in terms.” So this weakens, not supports, the argument.