PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 1
Advertisement: GreenBank gives all of its customers unlimited(26 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the advertisement's(7 more words not shown)
- Abases a recommendation(12 more words not shown)
- Bpresents claims that(16 more words not shown)
- Cdraws a conclusion(23 more words not shown)
- Dconcludes that a(15 more words not shown)
- Econcludes that a(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Twenty-five cents at the ATM is one charge. What about everything else the bank charges?
We can accept that GreenBank wins this particular comparison without accepting that it costs less to bank there overall. Perhaps GreenBank has a monthly account fee that TekBank doesn't have. Paying a little each time you withdraw cash could still be cheaper than paying that monthly fee. And if you rarely use an ATM, that difference might hardly affect you at all.
The rest of the account matters too. A bank might offer better interest or other financial benefits. We don't know whether either bank does; that's precisely why the advertisement hasn't established the total cost from this one fact.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to identify that leap. The advertisement gives us the cost of one banking service, then announces which bank costs more overall. We need the rest of the financial picture before making that comparison.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion is about cost, so focusing on economic factors is appropriate. A friendly receptionist or a pleasant branch might make a bank more appealing, but those qualities don't determine whether it costs more. The problem is that the advertisement considers too few of the economic factors.
- B
ATM charges are relevant to banking costs. The advertisement would be changing the subject if it discussed some unrelated personal scandal, but it doesn't. Its evidence addresses the issue; it simply doesn't cover enough of it to establish the conclusion.
- CCorrect
ATM use is one component of banking. The advertisement takes a difference in that component's price and treats it as establishing a difference in the overall price. GreenBank could charge more elsewhere and erase its ATM advantage. Without those other costs, we cannot make the advertised comparison.
- D
This goes in the other direction. Imagine being told that banking at TekBank costs more overall and then concluding that its ATMs must cost more. That would take a property of the whole service and apply it to one component. Our argument starts with the ATM charge and moves to the overall cost.
- E
The advertisement doesn't say, 'Nobody has proved that TekBank is cheaper, so it must be more expensive.' It supplies evidence: the ATM fee. The problem is the limited reach of that evidence, not a conclusion drawn from having no evidence.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.