Q16

[alyshavmc]

Is D wrong because of the last half of the answer choice? As in there is no mention of people being able to distinguish their real needs from apparent needs?

[maryadkins]

Yikes, tricky. I'm with you that this one had me tangled for a moment between (C) and (D). A few reasons I think (C) wins:

1. As you mention, (D) doesn't get into the author's actual point, which is that people can make autonomous decisions. (D) just raises the possibility and says critics should consider it, but the passage goes farther than this.

2. I think this passage is more about Marcusian theory and why it's wrong than about critics in general, and (D) doesn't mention Marcusians.

Otherwise, (D) isn't really off base, (C) is just better.

As for the others:

(A) is off b/c the passage isn't about social value.

(B) is, if anything, contradicting the author's point about consumers being autonomous.

(E) physical and psychological needs? Nope, not the author's point.

Hope this helps!

[CalvinC566]

I'm having a little issue with this question.
Can you elaborate on why E is wrong.
The answer C seems like it is only addressing the final paragraph.

[JorieB701]

I'm having a little issue with this question.
Can you elaborate on why E is wrong.
The answer C seems like it is only addressing the final paragraph.

I'm not an LSAT geek but I feel like the problem with E is what comes after "because." If it said something like, "it overlooks the consumer's--- ability to make autonomous decisions regarding their needs and how even if advertisements commit the ills charged by Marcusians, that maybe they're not so bad after all--," it might have been a contender. But the author didn't take issue with the distinction because it overlooked physical and psychological needs, they actually don't even overlook this; it's an issue central to their argument (kind of like in an LR-flaw answer choice). He takes issue with it because it requires an assumption (that consumers are just mindless sheep, passively compliant to the nefarious influence of advertisers), that he has reason to believe isn't actually true.

And I agree about C, I don't ever feel confident picking an answer choice that could do a better job of getting at the passage as a whole. But I think you could take issue with C and still circle back to it and commit. Especially since the first half of the passage is primarily devoted to describing this theory that the author then spends the second half of the passage complaining about. I just realized my opinion of RC passage authors is that they're often kind of whiny. lol.

But yea, that's the way I see it. C is basically like, "that theory I just kindly described to you, it's wrong, and here's my reason why in a nutshell."

[KenM242]

I think the reason (D) is wrong is that it says 'critics ... typically' as in all critics more often than not make such claims. But the first line says 'some critics'.
So (D) is atrributing something mot necesaarily true to the majority of the critics when it only applies to however many ppl that are mentioned in the passage. I think the rest is legit.

[christine.trg]

(E) is wrong b/c its focus is off and what it claims is in part both blatantly incorrect (directly goes against the passage) and unsupported.

OFF-FOCUS:
(E) almost seems to defend advertising in saying that what M have done is not good enough to attack advertising. But the passage isn't a defense of advertising, nor is it really a critique of it. The author almost stands apart from whether, as some critics of ads claim, ads truly have a "manipulative and hegemonic power." The critique is levied against the Ms, which (E) starts off addressing, then veers off as you continue.

INCORRECT/UNSUPPORTED:
(E) also attributes the reason for the "problematic distinction" to an oversight of consumers' "physical and psychological needs."

But what does the passage say about why the distinction is problematic? It's not b/c of this so-called "oversight"--it's because through this distinction, Ms mistakenly assume that we, as consumers, don't make choices independently, that we who are rational and informed are incapable of resisting the persuasive forces of ads, that we can't gain at some level a true fulfillment of our needs in choosing the things advertised to us.

Also, a distinction b/w "physical and psychological needs" is not mentioned at all--yes, according to Ms psychological associations are forged through the process of advertising, but that doesn't mean Ms are arguing that we can't have real psychological needs separate from the ones ads try to create in us. Rather, their distinction was b/w "real" and "false" needs.

The way (E) salad tosses all these attractive and mostly mentioned words around though!