PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 9
Consumer advocate: Last year's worldwide alarm about a(78 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the consumer(7 more words not shown)
- Arestates its conclusion(9 more words not shown)
- Bfails to acknowledge(13 more words not shown)
- Casserts that the(18 more words not shown)
- Duses inflammatory language(7 more words not shown)
- Eoverlooks the possibility(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the antivirus software worked?
The advocate treats the small number of reported damage cases as evidence that the warning was a sales trick. But lots of people bought protection after the warning. Perhaps the unprotected computers would have suffered far more damage, and the reported cases are what remained after the software prevented the rest.
There's no conflict between a company profiting and its warning being useful. The sellers could want more customers and also be warning about a real threat. We would need to know what would have happened without the protective steps before using the limited damage to declare the alarm fraudulent.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, that's the possibility I'd look for: the low damage total might show successful prevention, not that there was little to prevent. We don't need to prove the programs worked. The advocate's evidence has to leave that explanation open.
Working the answers
- A
The advocate does offer reasons: relatively few reported damage cases and many program sales. Those facts aren't just repetitions of “the warning was a fraud.” We can object that the evidence doesn't establish the conclusion without pretending no supporting evidence was attempted.
- B
A program could protect against other viruses even if the sellers lied about this particular one. Its usefulness elsewhere doesn't settle whether this warning was justified. The missing possibility concerns protection against the very threat being discussed, which would explain why that threat produced little observed damage.
- C
This describes inferring that an earlier event caused a later one merely because it came first. The advocate's mistake is different: using the limited observed harm to dismiss the threat while ignoring the possible effect of protection. There is reasoning about motives and outcomes, but not the particular earlier-event-therefore-cause inference C describes.
- D
Words such as “fraud” are strong, but the advocate also provides factual evidence about reported cases and sales. D says inflammatory language substitutes for any evidence. That misdescribes the passage. The evidence can be inadequate even though it exists.
- ECorrect
The protective steps may have prevented damage on many computers. If so, the warning led people to take useful precautions, and the small number of damaged computers is compatible with a serious initial threat. The advocate overlooks that explanation and too quickly treats the outcome as evidence that the warning was merely a sales device.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.