Reading comp PrepTest 141 · Section 1 · Question 17

Passage SummaryTopic:

Paragraph 1

• Paragraph note
  • A criticism of advertising is introduced, along with its central proponent
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Marcuse - Ads create false needs, which people meet with products that leave them unsatisfied, making companies richer

Paragraph 2

• Paragraph note
  • An assumption/base idea of Marcuse's theory is explored
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Assumption ("supposed") - People have physical/psychological needs, and they're stolen by ads, leading to purchases that leave people unsatisfied
  • Example - Perfume and sex

Paragraph 3

• Paragraph note
  • The Author hops in to say the Marcusian argument is bad
• Assumption (real needs vs. false needs) is problematic
• If M is right, then we can't separate these because they're ingrained

Paragraph 4

• Paragraph note
  • The Author goes further and says the Marcusian argument is wrong
• Views, minor Meta-Structures, and the author's attitude
  • Assumption - Consumers don't have control
  • Reality - Ads can't make people do things if people are informed, and ads can't lie (regulations)
  • Reality - Most adults understand ad techniques
  • If people have needs, they may fulfill them with stuff
  • Products may not give the advertised feeling, but they can still give some feeling/fulfillment

Main Point:
Marcuse and his adherents claim that ads create false needs in people that are left unfulfilled by purchases, that, even if right, rests on a problematic distinction. But he's not right, because consumers make informed decisions and can opt for fulfillment from products.

Key Lines:
Lines 1-4 - Criticism/a viewpoint is introduced
Lines 20-21 - An example makes a point
Lines 22-25 - The main point of the criticism is summarized
Lines 26-28 - The Author criticizes Marcuse's view even if Marcuse is right
Lines 35-37 - The Author argues that Marcuse is wrong (points out an assumption)

Meta-Structure:
Rebuttal of Criticism - The Author brings up a viewpoint only to argue against it.

Argument in the Alternative - See second paragraph in Last Thoughts!

Last Thoughts:
Note that we have three sentences in our Main Point! The LSAT will almost certainly be more succinct than we will be in the correct answer to the Main Point question, but we wanted to make sure that we got the entirety of the debate, and both prongs of the Author's argument.

Speaking of which, note the difference between Paragraphs 3 and 4. In Paragraph 3, the Author notes that the distinction on which Marcuse's criticism lies is "problematic," as it would be impossible to tell the difference between the two...if Marcuse is correct. So that paragraph's criticism assumes that Marcuse is correct and then shows a problem with the argument. The following paragraph, however, pivots and argues that Marcuse is actually wrong, explaining why. This is an interesting argumentative strategy called arguing in the alternative—you show that, no matter what is true, the outcome is the same. Here, the Author essentially says—Marcuse is wrong, but even if he's right, his argument is still problematic. Cover all your bases as a lawyer!

That said, the main point of this argument is still that Marcuse and his adherents are wrong—the argument laid out in Paragraph 4. That's what the argument leads to, and the Author pivots ("But") from her argument in Paragraph 3 to the argument in Paragraph 4, highlighting it as the main part of her argument.