PrepTest 149, Section 3, Question 25
Salesperson: If your vacuuming needs are limited to(36 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the salesperson's(13 more words not shown)
- AThe only types(12 more words not shown)
- BInexpensive handheld vacuum(10 more words not shown)
- CAny handheld vacuum(21 more words not shown)
- DIf your household(19 more words not shown)
- EThe more versatile(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What about an uncarpeted floor that isn't wood or tile?
The salesperson's claim is narrow: your vacuuming needs must be limited to small uncarpeted areas. Maybe that doesn't describe many households, but we can still evaluate the recommendation for people it does describe. The evidence says the inexpensive handheld machines will probably handle wood and tile. The conclusion quietly expands that to uncarpeted floors in general.
What we’re looking for
Imagine someone has a metal floor. We haven't been told whether the machine would handle it. That doesn't prove it would fail; it shows what's missing. To support the conclusion, I'd look for something showing that wood and tile cover the relevant uncarpeted surfaces people normally encounter.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
If most consumers encounter only carpet, wood, and tile, then their uncarpeted surfaces will be wood or tile. That makes the salesperson's evidence much more relevant to the broader claim about uncarpeted floors. A doesn't eliminate every unusual surface for every consumer, but the conclusion is that the handheld is likely to be sufficient. We need support, not a guarantee covering every imaginable floor.
- B
Carpeted floors are outside the needs specified in the conclusion. The handheld could be excellent on carpet and still fail on an unmentioned kind of uncarpeted surface. B adds an ability we don't need instead of connecting wood and tile to the full relevant category.
- C
This starts with an easy-to-use handheld that is sufficient only for small uncarpeted areas, then concludes that it is probably inexpensive. The salesperson starts with an inexpensive handheld and concludes that it will probably meet the specified needs. C doesn't establish that suitability. It also adds 'only': the original recommendation doesn't claim these machines are incapable of handling anything else.
- D
Needing a vacuum cleaner at all doesn't establish that an inexpensive handheld will be sufficient. D also concerns households whose needs include these small areas; the conclusion concerns people whose vacuuming needs are limited to them. Either way, saying a vacuum is needed leaves the machine's suitability unresolved.
- E
A connection between versatility and expense doesn't tell us whether these handheld machines can clean the relevant floor surfaces. Perhaps a more versatile machine costs more. We still need to know whether the inexpensive option covers this customer's limited needs.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.