Reading comp PrepTest 129 · Section 4 · Question 5

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

The passage suggests that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

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

Question Type

Legal

Strategy Overview

Refer to notes or what you highlighted/underlined to locate where the passage discusses outcomes from the case in the third paragraph, and refer to the relevant part of the passage as needed to find that answer choice that must be true

Answer Anticipation

For questions that ask us to find a specific detail mentioned in the passage, quickly finding and reviewing that piece of information is paramount. That is why we make brief notes describing the role of each paragraph and highlight or underline definitions and the minor Meta-Structures — doing so helps us find the salient information efficiently and reliably. Once we review that part of the passage, we can look through the answer choices to see which one is best supported by what we reviewed.Here, the question asks what's been "established" by the case in the third paragraph. In other words, it's asking about the outcomes of those cases. Where did those show up in the passage? Surprisingly, not in the third paragraph! Our note for the fourth paragraph is, "Author on case's precedent and the FCC's new approach (public can petition every three years, many issues discussed)." By referring to the "precedent" set by these cases, we know that this paragraph discusses the outcomes of those cases. We could use the outcomes specified in the parenthetical, but if we want a more precise anticipation, we can review the fourth paragraph.There, the author says that now, "the right of the public to question the performance of radio and television licensees before the FCC at renewal time every three years" (P4, S2). So, the FCC now allows members of the public to join hearings for radio and television license renewals and voice their concerns. Let's find an answer matching this!

Answer choices

  1. A
    Broadcasters are legally obligated Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited

    (A) Does this say that the case established that the FCC must allow members of the public to join hearings for radio and television license renewals and voice their concerns?

    Nope. The court ruled that the FCC, not the broadcasters, has to hold public hearings!

  2. B
    Broadcasters are now required Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    (B) Does this say that the case established that the FCC must allow members of the public to join hearings for radio and television license renewals and voice their concerns?

    No. Similar to (A), the court ruled that the FCC had an obligation to listen to the public — not that the broadcasters had such an obligation!

  3. C
    Except in cases involving Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    (C) Does this say that the case established that the FCC must allow members of the public to join hearings for radio and television license renewals and voice their concerns?

    Nope. The court ruled that the FCC must listen to the public, not that it had this obligation only when there's clear misconduct on the part of the broadcaster.

  4. D
    When evaluating the performance Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    (D) Does this say that the case established that the FCC must allow members of the public to join hearings for radio and television license renewals and voice their concerns?

    Not quite. The court ruled that the public has "the right ... to question the performance of radio and television licensees" (P4, S2), not that the FCC had an obligation to seek out public opinion. That's a subtle but important difference.

  5. E
    In FCC licensing proceedings, Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem

    (E) Does this say that the case established that the FCC must allow members of the public to join hearings for radio and television license renewals and voice their concerns?

    Finally, yes. This matches our anticipation, so we can select this and wrap up the passage. After all, the church's case established "a formidable precedent" that the parties representing community preferences — AKA the public — should be granted standing — AKA be allowed to speak in the hearings — in FCC licensing proceedings (P4, S1-S2). The court also didn't rule that broadcasters didn't have standing at such a proceeding, so the prior practice of allowing them to have standing, well, stands.

What this tests

Question analytics

Based on historical answer selection rates for this question.

Answer choice distribution

  1. A 10%
  2. B 4%
  3. C 3%
  4. D 12%
  5. E Credited 71%

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