PrepTest 155, Section 2, Question 23
Kira: It would be unwise for you to(56 more words not shown)
Binh responds to Kira's argument(7 more words not shown)
- Asuggesting that Kira(17 more words not shown)
- Bdenying Kira's premises(11 more words not shown)
- Carguing that Kira's(18 more words not shown)
- Dconceding Kira's premises(15 more words not shown)
- Eobserving that while(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The insurer can make money and still sell you something worth buying.
Kira says the policy is unwise because its price is designed to produce a profit. But think about why someone might buy insurance: protection against an unlikely expense that would otherwise be financially devastating. Paying for that protection could be worthwhile even if the company earns a profit. We don't yet know whether this particular policy provides good value, but the mere existence of profit doesn't decide that.
What we’re looking for
Binh agrees that the company is in business to make money. Then Binh challenges Kira's inference from that fact to the recommendation against buying. At first, it is tempting to describe the reply as 'Kira is wrong.' For the strategy question, though, we need to be more precise about what part of Kira's argument is being challenged. Does Binh establish the opposite recommendation, or just say this reason doesn't support her recommendation?
Working the answers
- A
Binh doesn't introduce a new fact that conflicts with Kira's conclusion. Binh points out a problem in getting from the existing fact about profit to a conclusion about buying the policy. Our insurance-protection example helps illustrate that objection, but Binh doesn't offer an additional factual premise in the exchange.
- B
Binh explicitly accepts the premise that the insurer aims to make money. That rules out a description beginning with denying Kira's premises. Nor does Binh assign a low probability to her conclusion. The response concerns whether the conclusion follows from the stated reason.
- C
The first part is on track: Kira's evidence isn't enough to establish her recommendation. The second part goes too far. Binh doesn't say profit strongly indicates that buying the policy is wise. It could be a poor purchase for reasons Kira hasn't mentioned. Inadequate support for a conclusion isn't support for its opposite.
- DCorrect
Binh concedes the premise without saying the conclusion itself is false. That's the refinement our initial 'Kira is wrong' shorthand needs. Kira may be right that buying this policy would be unwise, but she hasn't established that merely by pointing to the insurer's profit motive. Binh accepts the starting fact and rejects the claimed connection to the recommendation.
- E
The premises aren't described as inconsistent. Being in business to make money and setting prices to ensure profit fit together perfectly well. Binh also doesn't grant that either claim independently supports Kira's conclusion. The response says the profit fact doesn't imply that buying is unwise.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.