Invite a Friend
Free LSAT Practice
LSAT Practice Test
LSAT Practice Test Videos
eBook: The Road to 180
Law School Top 100
LSAT Test Proctor
LSAT Logic Games
Apple App Store
Digital LSAT Simulator
Fee Waiver Scholarship
LSAT Test Dates
LSAT Message Board
October 2013 LSAT
Humorous television advertisements are the only effective ones. For if something is humorous it will not only attract...
on December 29, 2019
Why is the answer not C
on January 3, 2020
^ Would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
on February 7, 2020
@rpark and @cjahangiri,
Let's take a look.
There is definitely a sufficient and necessary flaw going on here, but
the answer choices provide us with a few of these options, so we have
to dig deeper.
The argument makes the conclusion that any effective ad is humorous
because effective ads convey their message, and humorous ads convey
their message. The problem with this logic is that we cannot combine
those two statements because conveying a message is a necessary
condition for a humorous ad, but it's not a sufficient condition for
one. Thus, we're looking for an answer choice that's saying that that
the argument is assuming that only humorous ads convey their message.
(C) says, "It treats a necessary condition for an advertisementâ€™s
being effective as if it were a sufficient condition."
(C) is incorrect because in the final sentence of the argument, the
condition that's presented as necessary for an advertisement being
effective was that the ad must convey its message. However, this
necessary condition WAS NOT treated by the argument in the stimulus as
if it were a sufficient condition. Rather, the mistaken reversal that
actually happened in the argument involved being humorous. Thus, we
can get rid of this answer choice.
(A) says, "It takes for granted that nothing but humor can attract a
personâ€™s attention and hold it long enough for a message to be
(A) is great because it's saying the argument is assuming that only
humor can convey a message. This is what we were anticipating, and it
points out the specific type of converse (sufficient and necessary)
flaw that is occurring in the argument.
Does this help? Let us know if you have any other questions!
Posting to the forum is only allowed for members with active accounts.
REFER A FRIEND