LR Drill Set 7, Question 2
Anderson: This advertisement for a computer threatens consumers(74 more words not shown)
Parker's response to Anderson is(11 more words not shown)
- AParker's response appeals(11 more words not shown)
- BParker's response fails(9 more words not shown)
- CParker's response fails(18 more words not shown)
- DParker's response diverts(10 more words not shown)
- EParker's response misrepresents(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A computer ad threatening unemployment and premature aging sounds aggressive. But “insensitive” doesn't automatically settle whether it should be banned. I'd want to know who is imposing the ban and what reasons justify that restriction.
Parker might have answered that issue. Instead, the response says this kind of advertising is common, calls Anderson's reaction ridiculous, and blames a lack of computer skills.
How does Anderson's computer ability answer the criticism of the ad?
A person could struggle with computers and still make a valid objection to a marketing tactic. Anderson describes insensitivity to consumers; Parker recasts the complaint as a personal reaction. That makes me question whether Parker has addressed the stated reason for the ban at all.
What we’re looking for
The question asks which criticism does not apply. We need four descriptions of actual weaknesses and one that doesn't identify a relevant problem. My clearest concern is the shift toward attacking Anderson, but the choices may capture more than one aspect of that response.
Working the answers
- A
This is a fair criticism. Parker appeals to the practice being common without explaining why the practice is acceptable. A frequently used tactic could still be insensitive or otherwise objectionable. Its popularity doesn't answer the question of whether it deserves the protection Parker wants to give it.
- B
This is worth pausing over. In principle, someone could accept that an ad is insensitive and separately argue that insensitivity is not enough to justify a ban. But Parker doesn't develop that defense here. The response dismisses the reaction and attacks Anderson while leaving the stated complaint about treatment of consumers unaddressed. B identifies that failure to answer Anderson's criticism; it isn't the clearly irrelevant objection we're looking for.
- CCorrect
Why would Parker need to check for additional, less serious threats? The ad already threatens unemployment and premature aging. Whether it also threatens something milder, such as embarrassment, doesn't resolve whether Parker's response answers Anderson's complaint about those threats. C criticizes an omission that has no demonstrated bearing on the dispute.
- D
This describes the personal attack directly. Parker says Anderson objects only because of poor computer skills. That diverts attention from whether the ad treats consumers insensitively and whether it should be banned. Even if Anderson really lacked those skills, the stated objection would still need an answer.
- E
Anderson's stated reason is the ad's insensitivity to consumers. Parker substitutes a different explanation: Anderson's own lack of skill and resulting negative reaction. That misrepresents the reason offered for the ban. E concerns the distorted account of Anderson's argument, while D concerns the attack on Anderson personally; both problems occur in the response.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.