PrepTest 103, Section 1, Question 6
Videocassette recorders (VCRs) enable people to watch movies(44 more words not shown)
The argument is most vulnerable(7 more words not shown)
- Aconcludes that a(14 more words not shown)
- Bcites, in support(13 more words not shown)
- Cfails to establish(17 more words not shown)
- Dtakes a condition(24 more words not shown)
- Ebases a broad(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe these people just love movies.
That would explain why they own VCRs and why they go to theaters more often. A movie enthusiast might want to watch films both at home and on the big screen. The VCR need not be what sends that person to the theater.
The argument compares two groups: people who own VCRs and people who don't. It then tells us what owning a VCR does to a person's behavior. But we haven't seen that buying one changes how often someone goes out. The groups might already have differed because one group was more interested in movies.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, we can predict the missing explanation: a love of movies could lead to both VCR ownership and frequent theater visits. Showing that two habits go together doesn't establish that one produces the other.
Working the answers
- A
The author offers evidence: VCR owners go to theaters more often. The problem is the causal conclusion drawn from that comparison. This isn't an argument that a belief must be false simply because nobody has supplied evidence for it.
- B
There is no contradiction among the facts given. Being able to watch movies at home is compatible with also going to theaters frequently. The claimed causal effect could even turn out to be real; the evidence just hasn't established it. An unsupported conclusion is different from inconsistent evidence.
- CCorrect
Translate the abstract wording into our movie example. The supposed cause is owning a VCR. The supposed effect is going to theaters more often. The other factor could be enthusiasm for movies, which leads people both to buy VCRs and to visit theaters. The argument hasn't ruled out that common explanation.
- D
The author doesn't say owning a VCR guarantees theater attendance and then conclude that nobody can attend without one. In fact, the comparison includes people who don't own VCRs. The issue is explaining a difference in how often the two groups attend, not treating a way to guarantee attendance as a requirement for attending.
- E
These two groups are VCR owners and nonowners. Together, they include everyone, not just a small proportion of people overall. We also aren't told that the underlying comparison used a tiny sample. The stated problem is the leap from a difference between groups to a causal effect of ownership.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.