PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 14
Advertisement: A leading economist has determined that among(44 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AIt attempts to(16 more words not shown)
- BIts conclusion merely(8 more words not shown)
- CIt concludes that(20 more words not shown)
- DIt offers information(15 more words not shown)
- EIt uncritically projects(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the higher-paying job came first. Someone with a demanding, well-paid job might buy a laptop to do that work, or simply have more money available to buy one.
The study tells us that laptop owners earned more on average among the people who used computers at work. The advertisement turns that association into a story about how they got their jobs: buying the laptop supposedly led to higher pay. We haven't been told that order of events or what caused what.
What we’re looking for
Think of an advertisement saying that wealthy people own large houses, so buying a large house will make you wealthy. Having money might explain the purchase instead. The same objection applies here. For the flaw question, look for the possibility that the higher-paying job led to laptop ownership rather than the other way around.
Working the answers
- A
The number of people studied isn't given. We cannot diagnose a small sample merely because the argument reports an average. Even a very large study showing the same earnings difference would leave us asking whether laptop ownership caused the higher earnings or followed from them.
- B
The conclusion adds a causal claim that wasn't in the reported finding. “Laptop owners earned more” and “Owning a laptop led to a higher-paying job” are not the same statement. The problem is that extra step, not a conclusion that just repeats a premise.
- CCorrect
The first thing is the higher-paying job, and the second is owning a laptop. The advertisement says the laptop caused the higher-paying job. C points out that the evidence also fits the opposite explanation: the job caused the person to acquire the laptop.
For example, a person could get a well-paid position requiring work away from the office and then buy a laptop. That person would contribute to the observed earnings difference even though laptop ownership did not produce the job. The study doesn't distinguish those stories.
- D
The evidence doesn't prove the conclusion false. It is possible that laptop ownership helped some people obtain higher-paying work. The point is that this comparison alone doesn't establish that explanation, because another causal story fits it too. Unsupported and disproved are different.
- E
There is no prediction that the earnings pattern will continue indefinitely. The advertisement draws a causal conclusion from last year's difference. Even if that difference disappeared tomorrow, the reasoning error in explaining last year's results would still be the same.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.