LSAT 131 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q10

LR Question 10 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Producer: It has been argued that, while the government

QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption

CONCLUSION: Boycotts of TV shows are censorship.

REASONING: If enough people stop watching a TV show, advertisers will pull their ads and the show will be cancelled. There will be less shows available for the public to watch.

ANALYSIS: There is a certain logic to this argument. Clearly, boycotts restrict what can be seen.

But is it censorship? The producer never defined censorship. To prove the conclusion, we should show that what they described amounts to censorship.

___________

1. This doesn’t tell us what censorship is. It just makes a factual claim about what people will be able to watch.
   And frankly, it’s an absurd claim. There’s surely a financial restriction on what the public can watch. TV budgets are big, but they aren’t unlimited.
2. This is just a fact about which shows will be affected by boycotts. It doesn’t prove what censorship is.
3. This is irrelevant. This doesn’t touch on what makes something censorship. And the issue isn’t whether there is an audience. The issue is whether there is a big enough audience.
4. This addresses whether the public could manage to boycott violent shows. It doesn’t tell us if boycotts are censorship.
5. CORRECT. This matches. Boycotts certainly lead to a restriction of what people can watch.