PrepTest 138, Section 4, Question 15
Camille: Manufacturers of water-saving faucets exaggerate the amount(62 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Rebecca's argument(9 more words not shown)
- Athe cost of(14 more words not shown)
- Bshe saved as(12 more words not shown)
- Cthe manufacturers' claims(15 more words not shown)
- Dpeople who use(14 more words not shown)
- Einstalling more water-saving(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Saving some money isn't the same as saving as much as promised.
Suppose the manufacturer says the faucet will cut a monthly water bill by $100. Rebecca installs it and saves $20. Her bill really is lower, but the manufacturer's claim is still exaggerated. That one example allows both Camille's complaint and Rebecca's experience to be true.
What we’re looking for
Camille thinks the lower flow makes people run the water longer, offsetting some of the promised savings. Rebecca even agrees that showering takes longer. She responds by pointing to a lower bill, but that doesn't tell us how much the bill fell compared with what was advertised. The question asks what she takes for granted: she treats the actual savings as though they meet the promised amount. That's the comparison we need.
Working the answers
- A
Installation cost matters to whether the purchase pays for itself overall. Rebecca's evidence here is about lower water bills, and the gap is whether those savings match the advertised savings. Even a cheap installation wouldn't fix a claim of $100 in monthly water savings that turns out to be only $20.
- BCorrect
Rebecca assumes that she saved as much as the manufacturers suggested she would. Otherwise, a lower bill could coexist with an exaggerated promise. Her evidence establishes some savings; her conclusion needs those savings to be enough to vindicate the claim she's defending.
- C
The manufacturers don't all need to make identical claims. One product might promise $20 in savings and another might promise $100, with each making an accurate or inaccurate claim about its own performance. Agreement among manufacturers wouldn't establish that Rebecca received what was promised, and disagreement wouldn't identify the specific gap in her evidence.
- D
Satisfaction with low water flow doesn't determine the amount saved. Someone could dislike taking a longer shower and still receive the advertised savings, or be perfectly satisfied while saving much less than promised. Rebecca's conclusion concerns exaggeration of savings, not customer satisfaction.
- E
Additional faucets concern what might happen after further changes. Rebecca uses the lower bill since this installation to defend the current claims. Whether more installations would save more money doesn't tell us whether the savings already achieved match the amount advertised.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.