PrepTest 143, Section 3, Question 18
Consumer advocate: Manufacturers of children's toys often place(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe argument confuses(17 more words not shown)
- BThe argument overlooks(19 more words not shown)
- CThe argument relies(9 more words not shown)
- DThe argument presumes,(18 more words not shown)
- EThe argument relies(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
At first, the manufacturers' motive seems to conflict with the advocate's rule. The advocate wants overstated warnings to reduce injuries; the manufacturers only want to avoid lawsuits.
But read the rule carefully. It says the overstatement should reduce injuries. It doesn't say reducing injuries must be the manufacturer's purpose.
A warning written for purely self-interested reasons could still help a parent prevent an injury. Imagine an especially strong warning persuading a parent to keep a toy away from a situation in which a child could get hurt. The manufacturer might care only about lawsuits, but the precaution could still work.
What we’re looking for
That's the gap the flaw question asks us to describe: a motive doesn't settle an effect. The advocate needs to establish that overstating the danger fails to reduce injuries, and pointing to the reason for the warning doesn't do that.
Working the answers
- A
There is a requirement in the passage, but A describes it incorrectly. Reducing injuries is required to justify overstating a danger. The passage doesn't identify something necessary for reducing injuries and then treat that thing as enough to reduce them. The actual mistake concerns inferring the absence of a beneficial effect from the absence of that intention.
- B
This concerns warnings that do not overstate dangers. The argument is about warnings that do. Whether an accurate warning sometimes fails to prevent injuries doesn't tell us whether an exaggerated warning could reduce injuries despite the manufacturer's self-interested purpose.
- C
There is no small group of toys or manufacturers being used to represent a broader population. The advocate makes a general claim about the manufacturers' purpose, then draws a conclusion from it. We can grant that claim about purpose and still see the mistake.
- D
This is tempting because the advocate does proceed as though the warnings won't reduce injuries. But D makes the exaggeration itself the basis for that judgment: if a warning overstates danger, it will fail to prevent injuries. That's not the step the argument takes.
The stated rule leaves room for overstated warnings that do reduce injuries. What the advocate adds is that these manufacturers act only to protect themselves from lawsuits. The argument uses that purpose to deny the beneficial effect, which is the mistake E identifies.
- ECorrect
An action can produce a result that wasn't its purpose. The manufacturers may want only protection from lawsuits, while their exaggerated warnings also lead to safer handling of the toys. By treating the lack of an injury-prevention motive as though it rules out injury prevention, the advocate makes an unsupported jump from intentions to effects.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.