PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 4
Consumer: The latest Connorly Report suggests that Ocksenfrey(55 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the consumer's(12 more words not shown)
- Atreats evidence that(15 more words not shown)
- Bdraws a conclusion(9 more words not shown)
- Cfails to take(26 more words not shown)
- Dfails to provide(13 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We know who paid for the report. We still don't know whether the meals are nutritious.
The Connorly Report says Ocksenfrey's meals have virtually no nutritional value. Maybe that's accurate; maybe it isn't. Then we learn that a competitor commissioned the report and gets to approve early drafts. I can see why someone would be suspicious. The competitor has an obvious reason to want Ocksenfrey to look bad.
But could a biased report be right? Of course. Imagine the meals really do have almost no nutritional value. A competitor could be delighted to pay for a report exposing that problem. Its motive to hurt Ocksenfrey and the accuracy of the criticism could coexist.
That's where the consumer loses me. Questioning the report doesn't establish the opposite of what it says. To conclude that the meals really are nutritious, we'd want evidence about the meals. The report's sponsor hasn't supplied it.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to name that jump: evidence of apparent bias is being treated as evidence that the report is false. We don't need to prove the report true. We just need to see why the consumer hasn't established that it's false.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The consumer points to the report's apparent bias, then concludes that the report is wrong about the food. But a competitor can want to damage a company's reputation and accurately describe a problem with its products. The source gives us a reason to examine the report carefully, not a basis for declaring the meals nutritious.
- B
An unrepresentative sample would involve inspecting a limited selection of products and treating it as typical of the whole range. That's not the consumer's reasoning. We aren't told what products the report examined, and the consumer doesn't base the conclusion on a sample. The attack is on who commissioned the report.
- C
Even if Ocksenfrey wants to damage Danto's reputation too, what would that establish about the nutritional value of Ocksenfrey's meals? Nothing. Both companies could want bad publicity for the other, and this report could still be accurate or inaccurate.
The consumer does leave that possibility unmentioned. But leaving something out is only a relevant flaw if it matters to the inference. A publicity battle between the companies doesn't explain the leap from a biased sponsor to a false report.
- D
We aren't deciding which company makes better meals. Danto's meals could be more nutritious, less nutritious, or equally nutritious, and we'd still need evidence to decide whether Ocksenfrey's meals have nutritional value. This comparison doesn't answer the claim the consumer makes.
- E
Watch whose products the report criticizes. E concerns a report hostile to Danto's own products. The report in the argument criticizes Ocksenfrey's products. What Danto would approve about itself doesn't identify the mistake in rejecting this report.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.