Logical Reasoning

PT116 · S3 · Q20 Interviewer: A certain company released a

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

Interviewer: A certain company released a model of computer whose microprocessor design was flawed, making that computer liable to process information incorrectly.

Conclusion

There's no chance of future microprocessor design flaws.

Evidence

All microprocessors are now entirely-computer designed.

Evaluation

Pretty straightforward argument core to analyze: given that all these microprocessors are now entirely computer designed, how would we argue that there might be some microprocessor design flaw in the future?

We could just say — what, is the computer design process perfect? Why should we believe that? Can't computers make mistakes? In fact, didn't we get into this conversation by talking about a computer that was making a mistake?

Goal

Look for an answer that points out the possibility that a computer-designed microprocessor could still be flawed since the computer designing it could mess it up.

20.

The industry spokesperson's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Bad Evidence Match

    The industry rep wasn't assuming that the company whose microprocessor was flawed was an outlier, not representative of the rest of the industry, as this answer choice implies. To the contrary, the industry rep seems to defend that company on very general grounds that would apply to most/all other companies in the industry: too many parts on a circuit to check them all manually.

    7% picked this

  2. ignores the possibility that a

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: "other types of flaw" This argument is only about whether or not future microprocessors will have a design flaw. Any other type of flaw is irrelevant to the conversation.

    23% picked this

  3. overlooks the possibility that a

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: "other than microprocessor flaw" This argument is only about whether future microprocessors will have a design flaw. Flaws with parts other than the microprocessor are irrelevant to this argument.

    9% picked this

  4. treats a single instance of

    Opposite

    The industry rep is not concluding that there will be many microprocessor design flaws. She's concluding the opposite, that there will be no more of them.

    1% picked this

  5. Correct

    takes for granted, despite evidence

    Why this is right

    Yes, the industry rep is assuming that the computers that will be designing the microprocessors of the future are perfect, that they will not mess up, and thus there will never be an microprocessor design flaw in the future. Our evidence to the contrary is the fact that the conversation begins with the topic of a computer that messed up. This comes pretty close to being an example of the rarest of the famous flaws, Internal Contradiction.

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

    60% 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