PrepTest 117, Section 4, Question 20
Advertisement: Each of the Economic Merit Prize winners(51 more words not shown)
The advertisement's argumentation is most(10 more words not shown)
- AIt ignores the(21 more words not shown)
- BIt fails to(26 more words not shown)
- CIt appeals to(20 more words not shown)
- DIt takes for(27 more words not shown)
- EIt presumes, without(25 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
My first worry is whether these economists have the same retirement needs as everyone else. Maybe they have more savings or a different income. A plan that works for them might not work for me.
But slow down: the advertisement limits its recommendation to people with needs similar to theirs. That qualification matters. We can't fairly attack a claim that the plan is right for absolutely everyone, because that isn't what the advertisement says.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the flaw. Keep checking the steps in the argument, including the claim that these economists have recognized the plan's financial benefits. We shouldn't commit to our first objection if the wording doesn't support it.
Working the answers
- A
What earlier winners used doesn't settle whether this plan is good for people whose needs resemble those of the recent winners. Even if older winners used something else, the advertisement could still make its claim about the last 25 years. Also, being covered by a plan doesn't mean it's the only plan someone has.
- B
The advertisement calls Acme a good plan, not the best or the only good plan. Several other plans could also provide financial security without making Acme a poor choice. This attacks a stronger claim than the advertisement makes.
- C
Expert opinion isn't automatically worthless, and this advertisement gives a qualified recommendation rather than claiming the economists cannot be wrong. More immediately, we haven't actually been given an endorsement from these economists. We've been told they're covered by a plan. D identifies the unsupported step from that fact to their supposed approval.
- DCorrect
Being covered by a plan doesn't mean you chose it. An employer might have selected it for you. Then your enrollment tells us little about whether you personally evaluated and approved its financial merits.
That's the step we need to catch on rereading: the advertisement treats coverage as evidence that the economists have recognized the plan's benefits. Those aren't two independent facts we're supposed to accept. One is being inferred from the other.
Imagine being offered a retirement benefit at no cost. You might gladly accept the money even if you'd prefer a different plan when choosing for yourself. Accepting an available benefit isn't the same as endorsing it as a good purchase for someone else.
- E
This resembles our first concern, but the wording goes too far. The advertisement expressly addresses people with similar needs. It doesn't require every winner's needs to be identical to those of every reader. Differences between economists and the general population therefore don't expose the flaw in this limited recommendation.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.