Q4

[LSAT-Chang]

I was down to B, C, and D for this..

I eliminated (B) because I thought it was degree issues and not supported by the passage.

I eliminated (C) because I thought it was too general... the case in the passage does seem to show how the recourse of a citizens' group to the courts represents one way of protecting public interests, but I thought "effective means" was unsupported by the passage.

I just chose (D) because I eliminated the rest and even though I didn't clearly understand what it was talking about, I just circled it. Could someone help me understand why (C) is correct and (D) is wrong?

[ivankrasnov88]

I'm not with Manhattan LSAT staff but perhaps this can answer your question, Changsoyeon:

After reading the passage, I saw the main point as "showing how a citizens group overcame a government agency favoring broadcasting to the exclusion of the rights of citizens".

The problem with D is the fact that it seems to contradict the main point. If anything, after pressure by a citizens group of course, government regulation was able to safeguard public interests (by letting citizens protest broadcasting license renewals).

In a way, answer choice C seems to sum up the main point of the passage: a recourse of a citizens' group (United Church of Christ) to the courts represents an effective means of protecting public interest (because the group did win and resulted in ability to protest license renewals they deemed inappropriate).

Personally, on 'most likely to agree' Q's, I think generality is a good thing because it makes it easier to support. It's the specific assertions that may be less supportable (unless of course, you can point to the text to justify it).

[giladedelman]

Great explanation! I agree with the original post that (C) is a little shaky because it's a pretty general point. But at least the passage gives us one very thorough example of this happening.

I got to (C) by eliminating the others.

(A) is totally out of scope; we have no idea whether the FCC would have known or not.

(B) is way, way too strong. Probably could never be a correct LSAT answer -- too political -- though we should never say never. At any rate the passage doesn't indicate anything about how the author feels about the "very nature" of industry and business, just that the government was only paying attention to them and not to citizens.

(D) would contradict the passage, if anything, as the above post points out.

(E) is also really strong. The government cannot be trusted? The passage also never suggests that the government ought to favor the rights of the public over broadcasters' economic interests, just that it should consider both.

Good discussion!

[jayparkcom]

Please someone help out with answer choice C:

I interpreted the answer choice C as the following:

Govt regulation (FCC) cannot safeguard against individual businesses (the station) acting contrary to public interests (church)

In other words, I thought C was saying that: FCC cannot protect the interests of the church because its policy was designed to help out the tv industries.

Am I wrong?

I read the posts above but...
Still I don't get what is this "govt regulation" the answer choice is referring to.

[VendelaG465]

I'm having a hard time understanding why E couldn't work. It seemed that throughout the passage the author was strongly leaning towards the citizens side versus the FCC side?