PrepTest 144, Section 3, Question 15
Advertisement: In a carefully controlled study, blindfolded volunteers(56 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the advertisement(12 more words not shown)
- AIt overlooks the(21 more words not shown)
- BIt takes for(30 more words not shown)
- CIt overlooks the(19 more words not shown)
- DIt overlooks the(26 more words not shown)
- EIt is based(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if Sparkle won four groups and lost the fifth?
Each volunteer compared Sparkle with just one rival. Dividing the volunteers evenly gives us five equally sized comparisons, but the reported result lumps everyone together: most volunteers preferred Sparkle to whichever cola they tried.
Imagine ten volunteers in each group. All ten in each of the first four groups prefer Sparkle. All ten in the fifth group prefer the competing cola. That's 40 out of 50 choosing Sparkle overall, a clear majority. Yet Sparkle lost unanimously to one of the tested competitors.
The argument's conclusion goes beyond that overall majority. It says Sparkle gets a more favorable response than any of the competing colas tested. To support that, we'd need to know what happened in each comparison. A strong overall result could hide a loss against a particular rival.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, look for the failure to distinguish the whole group from its five subgroups. The same volunteers can give us a majority for Sparkle overall and a majority against it in one comparison.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A result true of the combined group need not hold in each smaller group. Our 40-to-10 example shows exactly how: Sparkle wins overall while losing every vote in the fifth group. The advertisement hasn't given us the separate results needed to claim victory over every tested rival.
- B
The argument doesn't conclude that these people will buy Sparkle. Someone could prefer its taste and still buy something cheaper. Purchasing decisions are separate from the more favorable response shown in this taste test, so an assumption about what most volunteers would buy doesn't describe the error.
- C
An untested cola might be even better, but the conclusion limits itself to the competing colas tested. We don't need to compare Sparkle with every cola on the market. We need to know whether it actually beat each of the rivals included in this study.
- D
Packaging and price could matter to shoppers, but these volunteers were blindfolded and comparing tastes. Those other reasons don't explain why the combined taste-test result fails to establish each separate comparison. Our objection works even if every volunteer responds solely to taste.
- E
The claim concerns competing colas, not every possible beverage. Whether people prefer milk, wine, or another kind of soda doesn't address the conclusion. Testing more kinds of drinks would leave the actual problem untouched: we still need the results for each cola comparison.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.