#20 - Historian: Radio drama requires its listeners to think

[annabelle.swift]

I understand why E is incorrect, but I have some reservations about D.

I negated D to "For today's generation of TV viewers, something (podcasts, for example) fill the gap left by radio as a medium to exercise imagination." I thought that IF this new medium of entertainment was as popular as radio had been, then yes, the conclusion would be weakened. However, we don't know that this new medium IS as popular as radio had been. We only know that it filled the gap in the media landscape as something that exercises consumers' imaginations. We don't know that it filled the gap in terms of popularity as well.

If podcasts exercised imaginations but were super unpopular compared to radio, then today's generation would still exercise their imaginations less frequently. The conclusion would not be weakened. Where did my thinking go wrong?

[atierney]

Hi, I like your negation, and if you follow the logical extension of that negation, then the argument fails, right? So, the idea is that there is a gap, and that this gap causes individuals to use their imagination less. However, if something, anything, fills the gap, then the gap no longer exists. Your reasoning had you fighting the very negation you that correctly made. You wanted to consider whether that gap was actually filled or how it could possibly be filled. Not only was this extra, unnecessary work, but it also went against a central tenet of taking the LSAT: Don't fight the premises or assumptions! Assume the truth and use them as indivisible in constructing a logical argument. If you do this, then it is clear that the negation destroys the argument, where the argument hinges upon there being a gap.

Let me know if you have further questions.