Q7 - Most Respondents to a magazine survey who had recently

[smiller]

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Breakdown:
Premises:
1. Most survey respondents who listened to a recording of a certain novel enjoyed it.
2. Most survey respondents who read the novel themselves did not enjoy it.

Conclusion:
A person who listens to a taped recording of a novel is more likely to enjoy it than someone who reads it themselves.

Answer Anticipation:
The premises are about one particular novel, while the conclusion makes a broader claim about any novel. The argument doesn't support this kind of generalization, and a correct answer could highlight that weakness.

Correct Answer:
(E)

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Premise Booster. The premises are about people who either read the novel or listened to a recording of it "recently." This simply strengthens the premises by stating that most of the respondents had either only read the novel, or only listened to the recording. It certainly doesn't weaken the argument: in other words, it's not making us doubt the link between the specific premises in the argument and the argument's conclusion.

(B) Out of scope. Being able to read the novel in less time doesn't weaken the argument in any way.

(C) Out of scope. This tells us that both groups of people are likely to say they enjoyed the novel. It doesn't impact the claim about one group enjoying the novel more than the other.

(D) Out of scope. The argument is about a novel that is available in both text and audio versions. We don't care about novels that aren't.

(E) Correct. If this novel has a unique feature that makes it more likely to be enjoyed by someone who listens to a recording of it, the premises might not support a broader conclusion about novels in general.

Takeaway/Pattern: When facing a Weaken question, your job is not simply to challenge the conclusion. Your job is to find an answer that weakens the link between the premises and the conclusion. Unsupported generalizations are common in LR. If an argument contains this flaw, be ready for an answer choice to address it.

#officialexplanation

[selimazing]

Brief summary:

Premise:
-Respondents to a magazine survey listened to a tape recording of a certain best-selling book and enjoyed the novel
-Respondents who read the same best-selling novel hated it.

Conclusion

Survey results allow us to conclude that a person who listens to a taped reading of a novel is MORE likely to enjoy the novel THAN a person who reads it.

Analysis & Attack

First, characterize the conclusion. Notice that the conclusion is making a comparison between listening to a taped reading of a novel and actually reading. It concludes that a person is more likely to enjoy a taped reading than actually reading the novel

Second, think about how would you weaken a comparison between two things? The premise uses an example of one best-selling novel to draw a general conclusion about novel enjoyment through reading v. listening. In real life, if someone tried to convince you that you would enjoy a novel if you listened to a tape recording than if you actually read it., based on these survey results what would counterattack? when you place yourself within the lsat-universe (ew, i know) it makes much more sense...

So, how would you weaken the comparison made in the conclusion?

What if there was a characteristic about that specific book from that survey that made it more conducive to listening than reading. If you counter that point back then it weakens the conclusion that generalizes which people enjoy more reading or listening a/to novel.

Thus, the answer choice that weakens the conclusion is (E).

I hope this makes sense!

[daijob]

I thought A is correct because if they do not do both, they cannot compare...maybe if they would do both, they will change their ideas, so only doing one of them can weak the argument.
Why is A wrong?

Thank you

[selimazing]

Think about what A is saying and explicitly focus on the conclusion.

The conclusion
The survey support the contention that a person who listens to a taped reading of a novel is more likely to enjoy the novel than a person who reads it.

Simplifying the conclusion: A person who listens to a taped reading will enjoy the novel more than someone who read it.

What does A say:

Most respondents who had listened to a taped recording of the novel never read it and most respondents who had read the novel novel had never listened to a recording of it.

Does that weaken the conclusion? (remember to characterize the conclusion--is it predicting? is it making a normative claim?--in this case its comparing between the two groups of people who have read versus those who listened to the tape). To weaken a comparison you have bring up a characteristic between the two that makes then not comparable. When you compare two things you assume that they have similar characteristics to be deemed comparable. Given that broad approach for attack you should be on the lookout for choices that attack that comparison--i.e. bring up a unique trait about one of the two things (reading/listening) that would make it not fair to be compared. For instance, is there something unique to the act of listening that would make me enjoy listening to the novel more than I would if I read it? Choice (E) does this.

How can you weaken the point that taped reading is more enjoyable than actually reading?

Even if, as (A) says that respondents listened to the taped recording and read the novel DOES that make it more or less likely that one is more enjoyable than the other? No because it forces me to assume that had each person read and listened to the recording would change their mind about the enjoyment and that by doing BOTH it would not change my initial enjoyment (or lack thereof) of the novel. This is a pretty major assumption to make (I am sure there are others). If you have to make leaps in assumption to make your answer make sense that is also a red flag that the choice is incorrect---especially depending on what direction you take your assumption it can effect in your conclusion i..e what if their minds don't change after each reading and listening? then that doesn't weaken the original conclusion!

But the key here again, is to zone in on the conclusion and recognize that a comparison is being made about two things (key words in the conclusion: more/than) and your approach for attack is how do I make these two things being compared less likely to be comparable.

I hope this helps!

[TingR721]

I think the key is to attack the link between the support and conclusion. Only E does that.

But I thought even if the novel in question was unique, it could still be true that people who listen to taped reading enjoy more than people who read the novel do. E attacks the link between the conclusion and support but does not destroy the conclusion.

[Yit HanS103]

#7

I can't see E being the answer to this WEAKEN question.
E is an answer I would choose if this was a resolve the paradox question. E sounds more like an explanation to why people who listened to the tape enjoyed it more, because the dialogue was better understood if it was listened.

but as a weaken question, I feel like E actually supports the conclusion of the stimulus.

I didn't really like any answer but I used the process of elimination and I chose C. I feel like C is saying those that claim they enjoyed it when they listened to the tape is a lie or no supported. so the conclusion of the stimulus doesn't hold.