PrepTest 159, Section 3, Question 4
Toy manufacturer: Our competitors argue that we should(64 more words not shown)
The toy manufacturer's argument is(7 more words not shown)
- Aattempts to justify(9 more words not shown)
- Brejects an argument(20 more words not shown)
- Cassumes that merely(14 more words not shown)
- Drejects an argument(16 more words not shown)
- Etakes a necessary(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A toy allegedly injured children. I'd want to know how. Did ordinary use expose children to a danger, or was the object used in an unusual way? A child could get hurt trying to swallow a pen, but that alone wouldn't settle whether pens should be withdrawn from stores. So I'm not ready to accept the competitors' recommendation without more information.
That doesn't rescue the manufacturer's response.
First, the manufacturer says the injury allegations haven't been proved. Fine: unproved allegations leave a question open. Then the manufacturer says that even if the injuries were proved, the competitors' argument wouldn't deserve serious attention because they haven't withdrawn their own injury-causing toys.
People can give good advice and fail to follow it. Imagine someone who smokes telling you not to smoke. Pointing out that person's smoking doesn't show the warning is wrong. Likewise, these competitors could be hypocrites and still be right about withdrawing KlopperKidz.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to identify that move: dismissing advice because the people giving it don't follow it themselves. We don't need to decide whether the toys really should be withdrawn to see why this objection fails.
Working the answers
- A
Mutually exclusive reasons couldn't both be true. But these two claims can coexist: the allegations about KlopperKidz haven't been proved, and competitors haven't withdrawn their own toys after injuries. The manufacturer's reasons don't contradict each other.
- B
A competitor might benefit from getting KlopperKidz off the shelves, so this is an easy criticism to imagine. But the manufacturer doesn't reject the argument because the competitors stand to gain. The stated objection is that they don't follow their own recommendation. We need the attack actually made, not another attack the manufacturer could have made.
- C
The manufacturer calls the allegations unproved, not false. It never concludes that KlopperKidz is safe merely because injuries haven't been proved. In fact, it goes on to consider what would happen even if the allegations were proved. C describes a leap the argument doesn't make.
- DCorrect
The competitors recommend voluntarily withdrawing toys that can cause injury, but they haven't done that with their own toys. The manufacturer uses that failure to dismiss their argument. Their inconsistent conduct doesn't settle whether their recommendation is sound, just as a smoker's conduct doesn't settle whether a warning about smoking is sound.
- E
There is no swap between something required for a toy to be unsafe and something that establishes it is unsafe. The conclusion concerns whether to take the competitors' argument seriously, and the objection concerns their conduct. E doesn't describe that reasoning.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.