Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern

Question

Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern about the numerous highly popular television programs that emphasize paranormal incidents, warning that these programs will encourage superstition and thereby impede the public’s scientific understanding. But these predictions are baseless. Throughout recorded history, dramatists have relied on ghosts and spirits to enliven their stories, and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has steadily advanced.

The television network executive’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) It fails to consider that one phenomenon can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by another phenomenon.
(B) It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they must be causally connected.
(C) It fails to consider that the occurrence of one phenomenon can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of another even if the former does not impede the latter.
(D) It fails to consider that just because one phenomenon is known to affect another, the latter does not also affect the former.
(E) It takes for granted that the contention that one phenomenon causes another must be baseless if the latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former

Ayeka · Answer

Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern about the numerous highly popular television programs that emphasize paranormal incidents, warning that these programs will encourage superstition and thereby impede the public’s scientific understanding. But these predictions are baseless. Throughout recorded history, dramatists have relied on ghosts and spirits to enliven their stories, and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has steadily advanced.
The television network executive’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) It fails to consider that one phenomenon can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by another phenomenon. MIGHT BE THE ANSWER
(B) It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they must be causally connected. NOTHING IS CASUALLY CONNECTED ABOVE
(C) It fails to consider that the occurrence of one phenomenon can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of another even if the former does not impede the latter. IT DOESN’T SAY PARANORMAL PROGRAMS INDIRECTLY AFFECTED THE SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDING 
(D) It fails to consider that just because one phenomenon is known to affect another, the latter does not also affect the former. NOTHING LIKE THIS IS STATED.
(E) It takes for granted that the contention that one phenomenon causes another must be baseless if the latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former. A GOOD ONE BUT IT’s TOO EXTREME (must be). SO, THIS CAN’T BE THE ANSWER

Hence, correct answer is A.

Akshaynandurkar · Answer

I think option E is wrong because it has used the word "despite steady INCREASES in the pervasiveness of the former". because in passage it is nowhere mentioned that there is increases in reliance on ghost stories by dramatist. so option E goes beyond the passage logic
I have seen many solution to such LSAT questions where use of strong language is used to reject the option but in my personal opinion, we cannot rely on such logic. What defines strong opinion is not really technical. We should rely on logic for such questions instead of wordings.

gurugmat · Answer

The executive is responding to scientists’ concerns about popular TV shows that emphasize paranormal incidents. The scientists’ argument is that these shows could promote superstition, which could impede the public’s scientific understanding.

The executive’s counter-argument:

Throughout history, dramatists have used supernatural elements (like ghosts and spirits) in their stories.
Despite this, the public’s scientific understanding has steadily advanced over time.
Therefore, the concern that paranormal TV shows will impede scientific understanding is baseless.
 Flaw in Reasoning:
The television executive is making a critical assumption:

Because scientific understanding has advanced throughout history, despite the use of paranormal elements in dramatizations, paranormal-themed TV shows cannot impede scientific understanding.
This reasoning is flawed because the executive doesn’t address the possibility that both phenomena can occur at the same time: scientific progress can advance while still being impeded or slowed down by something like superstition. The mere fact that scientific understanding has advanced doesn't prove that paranormal shows haven’t slowed it down or had any negative effects.

The executive's error lies in failing to consider that something (like superstition) could impede progress even though progress is still occurring. Just because scientific understanding has advanced despite dramatizations of paranormal phenomena in the past, it doesn’t mean these shows haven’t had some negative impact or won't in the future.

A. It fails to consider that one phenomenon can steadily advance even when it is being impeded by another phenomenon.

This is the correct answer. The executive’s argument assumes that if scientific understanding has advanced, it must not have been impeded by superstition. However, the fact that scientific understanding has advanced doesn’t mean that superstition hasn’t slowed it down. Progress can occur despite impediments, and the executive’s argument ignores this possibility. This perfectly describes the flaw in reasoning. Keep on hold.
 B.It takes for granted that if a correlation has been observed between two phenomena, they must be causally connected.

This answer refers to a common flaw in reasoning where someone assumes that correlation implies causation. However, the executive does not make such a claim. There is no discussion of correlation or causality between paranormal shows and scientific understanding in the argument. The executive’s argument is focused on whether paranormal shows impede scientific understanding, not on a correlation. Eliminate.
 C. It fails to consider that the occurrence of one phenomenon can indirectly affect the pervasiveness of another even if the former does not impede the latter.

This choice suggests that the executive overlooks the possibility that paranormal TV shows could influence the pervasiveness of scientific understanding, even if they don’t directly impede it. While this is somewhat related to the concern about how paranormal shows might influence the public, the core flaw in the executive’s reasoning isn’t about indirect influence. The flaw is that the executive dismisses the possibility that the shows could impede scientific understanding. Eliminate.
 D. It fails to consider that just because one phenomenon is known to affect another, the latter does not also affect the former.

This choice suggests that the executive’s argument involves some kind of two-way causal relationship between paranormal shows and scientific understanding. However, the argument doesn’t imply such a relationship. The executive is not claiming that scientific understanding affects paranormal shows, or vice versa. Eliminate.
 E. It takes for granted that the contention that one phenomenon causes another must be baseless if the latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former.

This option is a bit convoluted. It suggests that the executive believes the scientists’ concerns are baseless simply because scientific understanding has persisted despite the presence of paranormal shows. While this might seem close, it doesn’t quite capture the core flaw, which is that scientific progress can still happen even if it is impeded by superstition or other factors. Eliminate.
Thus, A is the best answer. It directly addresses the flaw in the executive’s reasoning: the executive fails to consider that scientific progress can still occur even if it is being impeded by something like superstition or paranormal shows. The executive mistakenly believes that the steady advancement of science proves that there is no impediment, which is flawed reasoning.

kumarvibhuti630 · Answer

Some scientists have expressed concern about the numerous highly popular television programs that emphasize paranormal incidents, warning that these programs will encourage superstition and thereby impede the public’s scientific understanding. But these predictions are baseless. Throughout recorded history, dramatists have relied on ghosts and spirits to enliven their stories, and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has steadily advanced.

Conclusion: these predictions are baseless   
Explanation: dramatists have relied on ghosts and spirits to enliven their stories, and yet the scientific understanding of the populace has steadily advanced.

The television network executive’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

(A) Correct: It talks exactly about how even if one phenomenon which scientific understanding , can still steadily increase even if it is being impeded by superstitions. Here, you can consider the specific word use of   impede   and explanation along the line that , the scientific understanding could have more increased than the given steady rise if it wasn't impeded by superstitions.

(B) Incorrect, we are not concerned with correlaing them and having superstition and scientific understanding as causally connected.
(C) Incorrect: It uses the keyword   indirectly and says that former doesn't impede latter  , which is against the argument.
(D) Incorrect: Not concerned with how scientific understanding affect superstitions
(E) Incorrect: Close answer, but fails only along the line of saying   latter phenomenon has persisted despite steady increases in the pervasiveness of the former, because latter phenomenon is steadily increasing and we are not having clue about the prevasivenes of superstition in recorded history.

Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Television network executive: Some scientists have expressed concern

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards