PrepTest 127, Section 3, Question 4
The manufacturers of NoSmoke claim that their product(50 more words not shown)
The argument above is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Aillicitly presumes that(15 more words not shown)
- Bconfuses a mere(4 more words not shown)
- Crelies on a(7 more words not shown)
- Doverlooks the possibility(17 more words not shown)
- Eillicitly presumes that(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Giving smokers the main ingredient in NoSmoke isn't necessarily the same as giving them NoSmoke. Before we reject the manufacturer's claim, I want to know whether another ingredient could be doing the work.
The next sentence partly addresses that concern: there are only two ingredients, and the author proposes checking the second one too. But testing each separately still leaves a question. What happens when the two are taken together?
Perhaps neither ingredient reduces cravings on its own, but they interact when combined and produce that effect. In that case, both separate tests could show no reduction while the manufacturer's claim about the complete product remained true. We don't have to know that such an interaction actually occurs. Its possibility shows why the separate tests don't settle what the combination does.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to describe that mistake. The author transfers a result about the individual ingredients to the product they form together. We need an answer that captures that move, even if it expresses the idea more abstractly than we did.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The whole is NoSmoke, the parts are its two ingredients, and the quality is the ability to reduce cigarette cravings. The argument assumes that because neither part has that ability separately, the whole must lack it too. It hasn't checked whether the ingredients work together in a way that changes the result.
- B
The argument doesn't observe two things occurring together and then declare that one causes the other. It uses tests of separate ingredients to draw a conclusion about their combination. A familiar description of a causal mistake only works when the argument actually makes that mistake.
- C
The study does have participants, but we are given no reason to think they are unrepresentative of smokers. For example, a study limited to a particular age group might raise a question about applying its results more broadly. No comparable skew is identified here. Our objection concerns what the participants were given, not which smokers were selected.
- D
This is tempting because helping people quit sounds like the purpose of the product. But the conclusion is specifically that NoSmoke does not reduce cravings. It could help someone quit in some other way while that conclusion remained true. An unrelated benefit doesn't address the claim we need to evaluate.
- E
The author doesn't reject the claim merely because manufacturers have a reason to promote their product. Instead, the author cites a study as evidence. The mistake lies in extending the study's result about an ingredient to the complete product, not in assuming that an interested manufacturer must be wrong.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.