Logical Reasoning

PT108 · S3 · Q19 Faden: Most of our exercise

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

Faden: Most of our exercise machines are still in use after one year.

Faden's Conclusion

Your objection (that many customers might lie if a survey asks them , "do you still use your exercise equipment") is absurd.

Faden's Evidence

You have no way of showing that customers were lying.

Evaluate

Faden seems to be arguing that .

That seems overly harsh. Let's say a man fell to his death from the roof of a building.

Cop 1 says, "Clearly, a suicide." Cop 2 says, .

Could Cop 1 say, ?

Of course not. First of all, Cop 1 has no way of showing that it was a suicide. So the Cop 1's accusation cuts both ways.

But more importantly, people are allowed to speculate possible Alternate Explanations without needing proof.

Goal

Let's look for something saying, .

This feels somewhat like one of the 10 Famous Flaws, Unproven vs. Proven False, in the sense that Faden is acting like a lack of evidence for X makes X an absurd/false claim.

19.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning above?

  1. Greenwall takes for granted that

    Too Strong

    Is Greenwall assuming that many customers have stopped using the equipment but are too embarrassed to admit it? No. Greenwall is saying it's a possibility. She isn't assuming it's a fact. The effect of Greenwall's objection is simply to say, "since this alternate explanation is possible, it would be hasty to conclude your interpretation, Faden, which is that all these customers are telling the truth."

    4% picked this

  2. Greenwall presumes, without giving justification,

    Too Strong: most

    This is way too broad and strong. Greenwall doesn't say anything about most people, so she hasn't made any assumptions about most people. Many = at least a handful (we could say at least 5, even though that number is made up) Most = more than 50%

    11% picked this

  3. Faden presumes, without providing justification,

    Opposite, if anything

    Faden seems to assume that the less conclusive the evidence is for a claim, the less believable the claim becomes. Even this, though, would not be correct. We wouldn't accuse Faden of assuming this very strong Volume Dial type idea (less conclusive = less believable). Faden's statements are using absolute language, not relative language. Faden assumes "if there is no evidence, then the claim is absurd".

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    Faden presumes, without providing justification,

    Why this is right

    This is a conditional idea ("unless"), so we can diagram it and ask ourselves whether Faden made such a reasoning move: if evidence has not then evidence hasn't been proven false → been undermined This doesn't seem tempting to me on a first glance, but ultimately since all the other answers are bad, we'd have to revisit this one and think about how it could actually work. Faden was trying to show that most of their machines were still in use one year later. Faden's evidence was a survey in which most respondents said their equipment was still in use a year later. Greenwall does try to undermine that evidence somewhat by saying, "Whoa -- can we really trust that the survey tells the truth? Isn't it possibly that many customers would lie about still using the equipment because they'd be ashamed to admit they bought the equipment and quit exercising?" Faden's final claims are trying to prove that Greenwall's objection is absurd. In other words, Greenwall was objecting to the trusthworthiness of Faden's evidence, and Faden is arguing that this objection is ridiculous, "You haven't undermined by survey evidence. Your objection is absurd. After all, you have no way of showing/proving that my survey provided false information." So, yes, we can say that Faden's reasoning was, "Since you can't prove that my survey contains any lies, then you haven't undermined the trustworthiness of my survey."

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

    77% picked this

  5. Greenwall ignores the possibility that

    Not an Objection

    Since this answer uses the fails to consider / ignores the possibility prefix, we assess it like a Weaken idea. Does it hurt Greenwall if we say, "Some people stopped using the equipment and weren't embarrassed about it"? No, it doesn't. Greenwall wasn't committed to the idea that everyone who stopped using the equipment would be embarrassed; she was only saying that it's possible that many who stopped using it would be embarrassed.

    6% 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