LSAT-Preptest17-2-23

miduliu

Magazine editor: I know that some of our regular advertisers have been pressuring us to give favorable
mention to their products in our articles, but they should realize that for us to yield to their wishes would
actually be against their interests. To remain an effective advertising vehicle we must have loyal readership,
and we would soon  lost that readership  if our readers suspect that our editorial  integrity has been
compromised by pandering to advertisers.
Advertising-sales director: You underestimate the sophistication
of our readers. They recognize that the advertisements we carry are not articles, so their response to the
advertisements has never depended on their opinion of the editorial integrity of the magazine as a whole.
23. The magazine editor's argument assumes which one of the following?

(A) A magazine editor should never be influenced in the performance of his or her professional duties by the
wishes of the companies that regularly advertise in the magazine.
(B) The magazine cannot give any favorable mention  in  its articles to  its  regular advertisers without
compromising its reputation for editorial integrity
(C) Favorable mention of their products in the magazine's articles is of less value to the advertisers than is
the continued effectiveness of the magazine as an advertising vehicle.
(D) Giving favorable mention to a product in a magazine article is a more effective form of advertising than
is an explicit advertisement for the product in the same magazine.
(E) Carrying paid advertisements can never pose any threat to the magazine's reputation for editorial
integrity nor to the loyalty of its readership.
答案选C啊~我觉得B和C都很tempting。做题时选的是B。求教B为什么不对呢？

sdcar2010

For assumption choice, you cannot choose one that is too extreme.

B is too extreme because it does not HAVE to be true in order for the argument to be true.

dphxmg

sdcar2010:
Although I agree with you that C is the key, but your explanation is quite ambiguous at the best.

First, let me analyse your explanation. You seem to treat B as a sufficient condition for the argument to be valid. The other reason you give against B is that it is too extreme. The word, extreme, as used in your post is quite ambiguous especially when you say that the reason that it is extreme is that it treats something condition as necessary.

Now, I shall go back to the stimulus argument. I have to say that it is a shaky argument. The general structure of it is:
The magazine should not give favourable mentions to its advertisers in itself because that will diminish its effectiveness in advertising. Because if the readers suspect that the editorial integrity has been undermined by pandering to advertisers, the magazine would lost its loyal readership. Then, it'll be less effective in advertising. There are at least three gaps in the line of argument:
(1) between favourable mention and readers' suspect;
(2) between the loss of loyal readership and the diminishing of the effectiveness of the magazine as a vehicle for advertising;
(3) a general normative standard for making a choice when facing the trade-off between favourable mention and the diminishing of the effectiveness of the magazine as an advertising vehicle.

C just addresses gap (3).

What about B? B for me is an irrelevant choice. Because the magazine's reputation for editorial integrity and its readers' attitude toward its editorial integrity are not the same.

sdcar2010

LS, if you compare the language of (B) and (C), you would know what is the meaning of "extreme" and why (B) is extreme. For necessary assumption question, the more "extreme" answer choice is most likely a loser. Since LZ asked for help to choose between (B) and (C), a quick and dirt trick is welcome.

Back to your 3 gaps, you are overanalyzing. Rule of thumb, do not question the premise given in the stimulus.
The stimulus says "[t]o remain an effective advertising vehicle we must have loyal readership." Therefore, your gap (2) is not a gap for the argument.
Gap (1) is simply a common sense. If you know the Communist Party is a sponsor of China Daily and China Daily is glorifying the Communist Party in an article, as a reader, do you suspect the editorial integrity of China Daily?

Last but not the least, "compromising its reputation for editorial integrity" simply refers to "causing the reader to suspect that a magazine's editorial  integrity has been compromised", if you compare the stimulus and the Choice B.

dphxmg

As to your CCP analogy, I have to say, "Yes, I do." But this response is based on my knowledge of its dirty past. But you see, the point is that many people do not have this "common sense". They just blindly accept whatever the media say. Such people as my in-laws are still nostalgic about Mao's era, although they suffered badly then.

As to gap (2), it really depends on your interpretation of the words such as effectiveness and loyal. At least for me, they are rather vague.

A bit overanalysing, perhaps you are right. But if there is no C, you may well considering giving them a try. Of course, in the real exam, the examinee should instinctively respond to look for choices containing a normative principle. After all, the stimulus argument, generally speaking, is about inferring a normative statement from a series of factual statements. Thus, the most distinct gap exists between is and ought to be.

As to extreme, I don't know what your dictionary says about it. But for me, its core meaning is still about degree instead of quality. Perhaps, you can give me a borderline case of it. Moreover, you can't just exclude a choice on the ground that it contains absolute terms. Though I can't give you any example right now, I did meet the key with absolute terms in it.

dphxmg

By the way, your new icon is rather good-looking. Do I still have a chance with her?

平林新月

楼主，关于extreme神马的我觉得不是问题关键，关键是题干那家伙思路是怎么走的。他说，我们不好在文章里说你们的产品好的，因为这样是对你们没有好处的。*为啥呢？因为要成为efficient ad vehicle，我们要有loyal readership,要有loyal readership, 就要有editorial integrity. 但是，如果我给你说好话，editorial integrity就伤了，我们伤不起。所以不能给你们说好话。
这样，后半段的逻辑，用缩写，就是eav-->lr-->ei-->不说好话。省略中间的箭头就是eav与说好话是不能共存的。那么楼主可以看到，这家伙的逻辑只在一个地方跳跃了，就是* 的地方。*之前在说说好话对你们不好，*之后在说因为说好话对成为eav不好。那么楼主可以好奇一下，这个脑残干嘛突然间提出神马eav？干嘛我非得为了这个eav就不说好话？其实这家伙在偷偷地对eav与说好话对广告商的影响做了比较，在二者不可得兼的时候，取成为eav而舍说好话，因为他认为前者比后者重要，对广告商更有好处嘛。这就是C了。
B为神马不对呢？别忘了这是assume题，你要找出连接结论与前提的中间隐含条件，这个条件要填补一个逻辑跳跃使逻辑通顺，且是不能明示的。而B嘛，首先，它没有使得*处的逻辑跳跃，也是唯一的一个跳跃，得以弥补，不能使逻辑连贯完整。再者，B其实是我上头说的ei-->不说好话那一截，明明白白地放那里了，显然是明示的。如果是Inference题选它就对了。做assumption还不够格。
随便说说，表拍砖。