PrepTest 109, Section 4, Question 1
Advertisement: Among popular automobiles, Sturdimades stand apart.(73 more words not shown)
Construed as an argument, the(14 more words not shown)
- AIt draws a(17 more words not shown)
- BIts conclusion merely(7 more words not shown)
- CIt fails to(16 more words not shown)
- DThe evidence given(8 more words not shown)
- EIt treats popular(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about the Sturdimades that never made it into the club?
To join, an owner must already have driven the car at least 100,000 miles. Of course this group has stories about cars that lasted a long time. The membership rule keeps out the owners whose cars didn't reach that distance.
Hundreds of successful cars might sound impressive, but hundreds out of how many? Suppose those club members are a small fraction of everyone who bought a Sturdimade. Their experience wouldn't tell a new buyer what to expect from a typical purchase. Some cars reaching 300,000 miles doesn't establish that you can rely on yours lasting a very long time.
What we’re looking for
I'd also wonder what distinguishes these cars from other brands. Maybe other manufacturers have long-distance success stories too. But the more direct problem for the flaw question is the selected group: the advertisement shows us the successes and uses them to promise a dependable result to buyers generally.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Translate the wording into the actual cars. The “general conclusion” is that a buyer can rely on a Sturdimade for long-distance driving. The “cases selected” are club members' cars. The favorable characteristic used to select them is having already traveled at least 100,000 miles.
That's like estimating Americans' typical height by looking only at NBA players. The selection favors unusually tall people, so the group won't fairly represent everyone else. Here, choosing cars because they already lasted a long time can't establish how reliably Sturdimades in general will do so.
- B
The evidence concerns some particular cars that have traveled far. The conclusion concerns what a buyer can generally rely on. Those are different claims, and the unsupported jump between them is the problem. The conclusion doesn't merely repeat the evidence.
- C
Which term is being used in two different ways? The argument clearly concerns automobiles and the distances they have traveled. The problem remains even if we understand every word exactly as intended: the successful club members still don't establish the prospects for buyers generally. We need an actual ambiguity to justify C.
- D
Cars lasting a long time don't count against the claim that the cars can last a long time. They simply don't provide enough support for the stronger promise of reliability. Evidence that falls short of proving a conclusion isn't automatically evidence against it.
- E
This isn't “Everyone thinks Sturdimades are reliable, so they must be.” The advertisement cites owners whose cars have actually accumulated the required mileage. The problem is how those cases were selected, not treating the popularity of an opinion as proof.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.