PrepTest 103, Section 2, Question 1
Insurance that was to become effective at 9(85 more words not shown)
The representative's argument is flawed(9 more words not shown)
- Athe conclusion is(13 more words not shown)
- Bit appeals to(10 more words not shown)
- Cit makes an(8 more words not shown)
- Dit substitutes an(9 more words not shown)
- Ea cause and(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The mother's situation is heartbreaking. But was the insurance coverage in effect when her son died?
That is the issue the insurance company raises. The flight attendant died at 10 A.M. where he was, but it was only 7 A.M. in the place where he bought the policy. The policy was supposed to start at 9 A.M. The company says the coverage had not begun.
A response to that argument would need to address the policy's starting time. For example, which time zone determines when coverage begins? We do not resolve that by pointing out how badly someone needs the payment.
The representative instead tells us that the mother is ill and depended entirely on her son. I can understand wanting her to receive the money. Still, those facts do not show that the policy covered his death. Someone can urgently need financial help without that need establishing an insurance company's obligation to pay.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks what goes wrong in the representative's response. Look for an appeal to our sympathy that leaves the company's timing objection unanswered.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion is that the policy amount should be paid. The support is that the mother is ill and has lost her sole source of support. Those are different claims. The representative gives a reason for wanting the payment, even though that reason does not answer the coverage question. This is not merely repeating the conclusion as evidence.
- BCorrect
The representative invites us to feel pity for the mother instead of addressing whether the policy had become effective. Her illness and dependence make the situation sad, but they do not establish the relevant starting time or show that the company's interpretation is wrong.
We do not need to decide that the insurance company is ultimately right. The flaw is that the response does not answer the issue the company raised.
- C
The representative does not distinguish family obligations from business obligations. The argument points to the mother's need as a reason to pay. It never lays out two kinds of obligation and improperly separates them.
- D
Nobody's character is attacked. The representative does not call the insurer dishonest or attack an employee personally. The response tries to persuade through the mother's circumstances, not through criticism of a person.
- E
No cause is being mistaken for its effect. The dispute concerns whether coverage had started, and the response concerns a beneficiary's need. Those are different issues, but the representative does not reverse a causal explanation.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.