Reading comp PrepTest 129 · Section 4 · Question 3

Passage

Questions 1-5  .        The United States government agency responsible  . for overseeing television and radio broadcasting, the  . Federal Remaining source text redacted.
Passage walkthrough
Passage Summary

Topic: Legal


Paragraph 1

  • Paragraph note
    • The FCC's early policy (only serviced the broadcasting industry; citizens couldn't speak at hearings)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Cause-and-effect relationship, according to the author:
      • The fact that citizens couldn't speak at FCC hearings caused the FCC to seem like it only serviced the broadcasting industry (third and fourth sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "addressing only" (first sentence); "were not recognized" (second sentence); "did not have the standing" (third sentence); "exclusively" (last sentence)

Paragraph 2

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on landmark court case (changed FCC policy) and background on the case (FCC renewed discriminatory broadcast channel's license over a church's petition)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • A landmark case changed the FCC's early policy (first sentence)
      • The FCC probably denied the hearing to avoid setting a precedent that citizen groups could challenge government decisions (last sentence)
    • United Church of Christ's view:
      • A Jacksonville, MS television channel advocated racial segregation and excluded news and programs that supported integration (third and fourth sentences)
    • FCC's view:
      • The channel was discriminatory, but the church didn't have an economic interest in the channel, so the FCC couldn't hold a hearing and would be unnecessary anyway (fifth and sixth sentences)
    • Author's view: "real reason" (last sentence); "more likely" (last sentence)

Paragraph 3

  • Paragraph note
    • The church's two appeals (the first unsuccessful; in the second, a judge revoked the station's license and gave the church a hearing)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Comparison, according to the author:
      • The first judge granted a full renewal to the station, while the second revoked the license and held that the church was performing a public service and had a right to a hearing (first through last sentences)
    • Author's attitude: "little avail" (second sentence); "unprecedented" (last sentence)

Paragraph 4

  • Paragraph note
    • Author on case's precedent and the FCC's new approach (public can petition every three years, many issues discussed)
  • Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
    • Author's view:
      • The case set a precedent that the public can question radio and television licenses every three years at the time of renewal, and the public has discussed many issues at these hearings (first through last sentences)
    • Example of issues discussed at public FCC hearings, according to the author:
      • Racial issues; quality of children's television; violence; opposing political views (last sentence)
    • Author's attitude: "established a formidable precedent" (first sentence); "range of other matters" (last sentence); "because of the church's intervention" (last sentence)

Main Point: A court case brought by a church changed the course of history by challenging the FCC's practice of only listening to broadcasting companies, opening the door for community challenges to license renewals based on community values.

Meta-Structure?

Old Approach/New Approach: This passage best fits the Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure. In such a passage, the author describes an old way of doing something or thinking about something is described. The author then describes a new, alternative way of doing or thinking about that same thing. Usually, the author prefers the new approach. That fits this passage to a T, where the first paragraph explains the FCC's initial focus on economic/business interests and refusal to hold public hearings. The author then discusses a court case brought by a church that "changed the course of that history" (P2, S1). This case eventually ushered in the FCC's new approach, where it holds public hearings that listen to the community on various issues.

When an Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure defines a passage, the main point is usually the author's opinion on the new approach. The author speaks positively of the court case and its impact on the FCC's new approach, so we incorporated that into our anticipated main point.

Last Thoughts?

The back-and-forth of the court case (FCC renewal → Appeal → Decision against church → Appeal → Decision against television channel → Precedent/future decisions) was a little complex, so we should be sure we understand and differentiate the different steps along the way.

Question prompt

Which one of the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Remind ourselves of the main point of the passage, then head to the answers, focusing on those that line up with the main point and then using our notes/the passage to find the correct answer

Answer Anticipation

This question stem provides no indication as to the topic of the correct answer or where it'll show up in the passage. As such, we'll need to rely on our big-picture understanding of the passage to answer this question. We should start by reminding ourselves of the main point (either by reviewing what we said after reading the passage or by rereading our answer to the main point question). From there, we can head to the answer choices. If something in an answer choice doesn't seem familiar and isn't reflected in our notes on each paragraph, we shouldn't check the passage to see if it was mentioned. Instead, we'll table it and move on to the next answer choice. If something seems inconsistent with the main point, we can eliminate it. If something seems familiar, consistent with the main point, or reflected in our notes, we'll use our notes/highlights/underlines to find the part of the passage that proves the answer choice must be true. If we can find that confirmation, we'll select that answer choice and move on.

Answer choices

  1. A
    The broadcasting industry's economic Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Nope. Neither the main point nor our notes describe how the broadcasting industries' goals can be met. This passage was more about the public's ability to challenge the FCC's licensing process, not how to promote broadcast companies' goals. Moreover, this answer choice uses bold, SCOTUS-y language that expresses a superlative ("most easily"). This language is hard to support and thus unlikely to show up in the correct answer to a Must Be True question. For these reasons, we should resist the urge to check the passage and instead table or eliminate (A).

    But if we had to check the passage, we wouldn't find support for (A). The passage does discuss the economic interests of the broadcast industry (P1, S1), but that's not the same as their economic goals. Additionally, this answer talks about the way that these goals can be "most easily" met. That's a superlative with no basis in the passage.

  2. B
    The FCC was advised Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    No. Although the note for the first paragraph says that the FCC's early policy didn't allow citizens to speak at hearings, it doesn't suggest that the broadcasters told the FCC to bar citizens from these hearings. For this reason, we should resist the urge to check the passage and instead table or eliminate (B).

    But if we had to check the passage, we wouldn't find support for (B). This answer addresses the FCC's old approach, so if it were supported, the information supporting it would show up in the first paragraph. There's no such information that the FCC was directed by the companies to exclude the public from hearings, though, so this answer is incorrect.

  3. C
    The court ruled in Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    No. Our note for the third paragraph says that, in the case's final appeal, "a judge revoked the station's license and gave the church a hearing." Since a judge overturned the FCC's ruling in this case, that suggests that the FCC doesn't have the ultimate authority to decide whether to renew a broadcaster's license. We can eliminate this answer choice without reviewing the passage.

  4. D
    Before the United Church Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem

    (D) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Yes. This answer lines up with the Old Approach/New Approach Meta-Structure and main point for the passage. Moreover, our note for the first paragraph says that, before the case, the FCC didn't allow citizens to speak at hearings. These give us enough reason to select (D) without reviewing the passage.

    However, if you wanted to take the cautious route and look for direct support, you'll find it in the first paragraph. There, the author says that the FCC didn't recognize the rights of citizens to bring issues up at a hearing, and citizens' groups — including the church — didn't have standing unless they were themselves applying for a license (P1, S1-S3). This answer is directly backed up by the passage, so it's correct.

  5. E
    The case brought by Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    (E) Is this consistent with the main point or reflected in our notes?

    Not quite. This answer does line up with the main point, but it's too broad. While the church case "changed the course" of history and forced the FCC to listen to citizens' concerns — so it might have been the first time a court ruled that the FCC had to listen to the public — this answer is about all government agencies. Neither our main point nor our notes say that this was the first successful case brought against any agency.

    Moreover, neither says that the church was satisfied by the final decisions. Therefore, we should resist the urge to check the passage and instead table or eliminate (E).

    But if we had to check the passage, we wouldn't find support for (E). The passage never discusses other government agencies or whether the FCC's final decision satisfied the church.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 8%
  2. B 6%
  3. C 5%
  4. D Credited 72%
  5. E 9%

Deeper help

Ask follow-ups on any step

Optional AI tutor mode will let you interrogate assumptions, compare answers, and drill weak patterns without leaving the page.

Human-written explanations stay primary; AI is an add-on when you want it.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion