PrepTest 155, Section 1, Question 4
Zahler Motors executive: The Graham Motor Company should(66 more words not shown)
The dialogue most strongly supports(21 more words not shown)
- AIt is not(35 more words not shown)
- BIt is not(31 more words not shown)
- CIt is not(37 more words not shown)
- DIt is misleading(31 more words not shown)
- EIt is misleading(34 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Some Zahler minivans have the folding seat. Some still don't. Is the second fact enough to defend this advertisement?
Zahler points to its newest model: it now has the very feature Graham says Zahler lacks. Perhaps Graham's advertisement was accurate before that model arrived. But that wouldn't settle whether Graham should keep running it today. Zahler's complaint is about the comparison being made now.
Graham answers that dealers still sell new vehicles from the previous model year, and those lack the seat. Notice that Graham doesn't deny the newest model has it. Graham thinks the remaining featureless minivans are enough to make the commercial nonmisleading.
What we’re looking for
The question wants a principle Graham accepts and Zahler doesn't. I'd predict: a company isn't misleading customers by saying its competitor lacks a feature if some competing products currently on sale really do lack it. Zahler's objection rejects that defense in this situation: the existence of the updated model matters even while older models remain for sale.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This states Graham's defense. Some Zahler minivans currently offered for sale lack the folding seat, so Graham treats its claim as nonmisleading. Zahler objects despite those older models still being available. The disagreement is whether 'some models lack it' is enough to justify advertising that the competing product lacks it.
- B
Graham doesn't defend the advertisement by claiming ignorance of the new model. The defense is that older models without the feature are still being sold. Whether an executive's lack of knowledge would excuse a misleading comparison is a different question, and neither speaker gives us a position on that rule.
- C
Neither executive bases the argument on what causes people to buy a minivan. Even if hardly anyone chose a vehicle because of its folding seat, the speakers could still disagree about whether the commercial misdescribes Zahler's products. Consumer purchasing priorities don't identify their disagreement.
- D
This compares the overall package of features consumers want. The dialogue instead concerns whether one specific claim about one feature is misleading. Neither speaker says that having a better collection of desirable features determines the truthfulness of this comparison.
- E
This covers a different situation: every Zahler minivan currently for sale has the feature. Here, some older ones don't. Both executives could agree that the advertisement would be misleading in E's situation while disagreeing about the mixed selection actually on sale. We need the rule that separates their positions, not a rule they might both accept.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.