Nominees for the 62nd official Primetime Emmy Awards were recently announced. Whether you own a television, stream content directly into your 12″ computer screen, or scoff at the whole matter altogether, we hope that you’ll employ some sound Logical Reasoning as you reminisce about all the hours you’ve spent watching television (and, necessarily, not doing your LSAT prep).
Question:
This year, both “Mad Men” and “LOST” have been nominated for Emmy Awards in the category of Best Dramatic Television Series. Nielsen ratings, which have proven to be accurate indicators of a show’s popularity, have been compiled for each series. Although the majority of critics prefer “Mad Men” to “LOST,” “LOST” has consistently garnered higher ratings than “Mad Men” on the Nielsen scale. Since a show with a more loyal fan base is more likely to win an Emmy, we can predict with some certainty that “LOST” is more likely than “Mad Men” to receive the Award this year.
The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
A) presumes, without providing justification, that critics’ preferences are rarely accurate predictors of  Emmy success
B) fails to distinguish between a show’s popularity and the loyalty of its fan base
C) fails to consider whether shows with fan bases less loyal than those of their competitors have won Emmy Awards in previous years
D) takes for granted that the opinions of a majority of critics have not influenced the Nielsen ratings of either show this year
E) fails to consider the possibility that a show with a more loyal fan base is not of superior quality
Think you have it? View the full explanation after the jump.
Explanation:
This question asks you to identify a particular or specific flaw inherent in the argument’s line of reasoning. Usually, these arguments exhibit the same basic flaw: They fail to link the evidence properly to the conclusion. When you’re searching for faulty connections, keep track of the following:
1) the consistency of the language (does the argument assume that “freedom” means one thing in the evidence and something else in the conclusion?)
2) any information involving numbers or percentages (does the argument confuse “50%” with “50 people”?)
3) the scope of the argument (if the argument is about precipitation in Indonesia, is information about rainfall in Iceland really relevant?)
Now, let’s take a look at the sample question.
The argument reasons that because “LOST” has received higher Nielsen ratings than “Mad Men,” it must be more popular; the argument then concludes — based on this information — that “LOST” has a more loyal fan base and that it is therefore more likely to win an Emmy this year.
As you might notice, this argument uses inconsistent language like that described in #1 above: The evidence shows that “LOST” is more popular than “Mad Men,” which likely means that it has a larger fan base — but not necessarily a more loyal one. In other words, the argument “fails to distinguish between a show’s popularity and the loyalty of its fan base” (Choice B). Since the Emmy win is based on the loyalty of the fan base, and since we have no way of knowing which show has more loyal fans, the prediction in the conclusion cannot be made.
Choice B is correct.
A) presumes, without providing justification, that critics’ preferences are rarely accurate predictors of Emmy success
This is a flaw, but the argument does not commit it. The argument makes no claim about how often critics’ preferences can be used to predict Emmy wins; it merely suggests that, in this case, the majority of critics have expressed preference for a show (“Mad Men”) that will most likely lose. In that it refers to critics’ preferences outside of the year in question, this choice moves beyond the scope of the argument.
C) fails to consider whether shows with fan bases less loyal than those of their competitors have won Emmy Awards in previous years
The argument does indeed fail to consider this point, but this is not a flaw; the argument does not need to take the outcomes of “previous years” into account. Again, such information would fall outside the scope of the argument.
D) takes for granted that the opinions of a majority of critics have not influenced the Nielsen ratings of either show
It would be a flaw to make this assumption, but the argument does not make it. It is given that the Nielsen ratings for “LOST” are higher than those for “Mad Men,” and that is the information that the argument uses to reach its conclusion. Whether the Nielsen ratings themselves are a product of critics’ influence or publicity stunts or recession-based fluctuations in television-consumption, all that matters is that the final numbers show “LOST” to be the more popular show.
E) fails to consider the possibility that a show with a more loyal fan base is not of superior quality
It’s true that the argument does not account for this possibility, but it does not need to. Is it necessary to the argument that a show with a more loyal fan base be of superior quality? Well, neither the evidence nor the conclusion mentions quality as a criterion for an Emmy win. So, according to the information given, a lower-quality show with a more loyal fan base could very well win the Award.
Subscribe to RSS feed
