Logical Reasoning

PT103 · S3 · Q13 Using rational argument in advertisements

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Using rational argument in advertisements does not persuade people to buy the products being advertised.

Evidence

Using rational argument → doesn't persuade in advertisements ppl to buy

Conclusion

Using nonrational appeals → will persuade to emotion in ads ppl to buy

Evaluate

Consider this analogous argument: People who drive Toyota's do not live on Mars. So, ppl who don't drive Toyota's do live on Mars.

We're not allowed to just "flip a lightswitch" on claims. It's an illegal Negation (aka Necessary vs. Sufficient).

Our author's argument was basically this: Rational arguments don't persuade ppl. Thus, nonrational arguments will persuade ppl.

Goal

Look for an argument that is like, Prem - Things of type X don't do thing Y. Conc - Things not of type X will do thing Y.

13.

Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. People who ask others for

    Valid Logic

    This presents a conditional and then concludes a valid contrapositive. We're looking for a conclusion that sounds like, "Thus if you're not the 1st thing, you're not the 2nd thing". This one validly concludes, "Thus if you're not the 2nd thing, you're not the 1st thing." PREMISE ask for favors → refused CONCLUSION ~refused → ~ask for favors

    3% picked this

  2. In the past, people who

    Different Flaw: past = future

    This doesn't "flip the lightswitch" in going from premise to conclusion, it just says that "if discussing problems failed to solve them in the past, then doing the same thing will probably fail in the future too".

    3% picked this

  3. Using a computer has not

    Bad Conclusion Match

    If our premise is saying, using a computer has not improved skills then we would want to see a conclusion saying, So, not using a computer will improve skills Instead, the conclusion is just a normative (should) claim, which doesn't match the premise or the original argument.

    7% picked this

  4. A person who doesn't have

    Different Flaw: Relative vs. Absolute

    This premise establishes that positive letters of reference are required to get a good job. The conclusion then takes that yes/no type of language and turns it into Volume Dial type language. The better the reference, the better the job. That is a flaw, but it's not the same as the illegal flip of the lightswitch we're looking for. This answer choice would only match the original argument if the original's conclusion had said, Thus, the more rational an argument an advertisement makes, the less persuaded people will be to buy the product. Given this premise ~no pos letter of ref → can't get good job We would have wanted the conclusion to say So, if you have a positive letter of reference, you will get a good job.

    14% picked this

  5. Correct

    People never learn to program

    Why this is right

    This presents a conditional premise and then performs an illegal negation on it. read poorly written directions → don't learn programming read well written directions → do learn programming This matches well with the original: use rational argument → does not persuade use nonrational appeal → does persuade

    Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    73% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free