PrepTest 133, Section 2, Question 17
Advertiser: There's nothing wrong with a tool that(45 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the advertiser's(13 more words not shown)
- Ainclude some functions(6 more words not shown)
- Binclude a number(10 more words not shown)
- Ccost more than(16 more words not shown)
- Dbe able to(9 more words not shown)
- Enot be able(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I don't necessarily want my pen attached to a hammer. A tool can do lots of things without doing the things I need conveniently or well.
The advertiser counts functions: the VersaTool has more than any other tool. Then it predicts that I'll need additional tools less often than if I used a different multitool. But what are all these functions? Can it cut what I need to cut, tighten the screws I encounter, and handle the jobs I actually do?
Think of a pocket multitool with a knife, scissors, and screwdriver. Those could be useful every day. Adding something unusual, like a microphone, increases the number of functions, but that count doesn't tell me whether I can put my other tools away. And even a listed function might be performed poorly enough that I still reach for another tool.
What we’re looking for
For this flaw question, I'd question the move from more functions to less need for additional tools. Practical usefulness and quality matter too. We should keep those concerns in mind, but test each choice against the actual comparison: VersaTool versus other multiple-function tools.
Working the answers
- A
Some rarely used functions don't by themselves undermine the claim. Suppose VersaTool includes every commonly needed feature that its rival has, plus several odd extras. Those extras might go unused, but their presence doesn't make me need separate tools more often. A starts in the direction of our usefulness concern without showing that VersaTool falls short of another multitool where it matters.
- B
A function could be hard to perform with any tool while VersaTool still handles it as well as the alternatives. This describes difficulty in the task, not a disadvantage in VersaTool's coverage of the tasks we need. We don't learn that a different multitool would reduce the need for additional tools.
- C
Price isn't the advertised conclusion. VersaTool could be a poor financial deal while still making additional tools less frequently necessary. Comparing its price with the combined price of two other tools doesn't establish how often a user would need to supplement it.
- DCorrect
Another multitool might perform more of the functions people often need, even while VersaTool performs more functions in total. Imagine VersaTool has lots of unusual features but lacks a knife, while its rival includes one. Someone who cuts things every day would keep reaching for a separate knife when using VersaTool.
That directly challenges the claim about needing extra tools less often. The useful comparison is not simply how many jobs each tool can do; it's how often its user needs the jobs it cannot do. D supplies the comparative shortfall A leaves unstated.
- E
This sounds like our initial concern about doing each job well. But it compares VersaTool with single-function tools, while the conclusion compares it with other multitools. A dedicated knife might outperform VersaTool's knife and every rival multitool's knife too. That would not establish that using a rival multitool makes extra tools less necessary than using VersaTool. The comparison group matters.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.