PrepTest 128, Section 3, Question 9
A television commercial argued as follows: both the(44 more words not shown)
The television commercial's argument is(9 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(21 more words not shown)
- Battempts to establish(14 more words not shown)
- Cdismisses its competitor's(9 more words not shown)
- Dattempts to manipulate(20 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More of the same ingredient isn't automatically better. Think of a recipe that benefits from a little vinegar: increasing the concentration could leave the whole dish tasting overwhelmingly of vinegar. That isn't a claim about this product; it's a reminder to ask what the increase actually does.
The commercial addresses one concern by telling us that tests show the higher concentrations are completely safe. Fine. Accept safety. But safety doesn't establish every other advantage the commercial might want us to infer.
Then “faster relief” appears. Where did that come from? We were told about higher concentrations, not how quickly either product works. Perhaps the two products deliver relief at the same speed despite their different concentrations.
What we’re looking for
The recommendation relies on the missing connection: this higher concentration must provide faster relief. For the flaw question, that's what I want an answer to identify. Without that connection, the rule preferring faster relief doesn't tell us which product to choose.
Working the answers
- A
This is close, but it makes the assumption too broad. The commercial only needs a claim about the two products being compared, not a rule that holds for all products in all cases.
It also changes speed into effectiveness. Two products might produce the same relief, but one might do so in five minutes and the other in ten hours. How quickly the effect arrives is the distinction the commercial relies on; a general claim about greater effectiveness doesn't identify it as precisely.
- B
The claims about ingredients, safety, and speed of relief are matters that can be investigated. There is no evidence here that is impossible in principle to test or disprove. The problem is the missing evidence about speed, not an inherently untestable claim.
- C
The commercial doesn't reject a competitor's claim because the competitor said it. In fact, we aren't given a claim made by the competitor at all. Comparing the products' ingredients isn't an attack on the source of an argument.
- D
There is no appeal to fear, sympathy, or another emotion in the reasoning we're given. The commercial uses factual claims about ingredients and safety, plus a rule preferring faster relief. Its flaw is the unsupported connection among those claims.
- ECorrect
The commercial takes for granted that the higher concentration makes its product act faster. That is the bridge from the evidence about concentrations to the preference for faster relief. The safety tests don't supply that bridge: a product could be safe and more concentrated without providing relief sooner.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.