Logical Reasoning

PT117 · S4 · Q20 Advertisement: Each of the Economic

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

Advertisement: Each of the Economic Merit Prize winners from the past 25 years is covered by the Acme retirement plan.

Conclusion

The Acme plan is probably a good retirement plan for anyone with retirement needs similar to the last 25 yrs worth of Economic Merit Prize winners.

Intermediate Conclusion (thus clearly)

The Economic Merit Prize winners recognize that the Acme plan offers them a financially secure future.

Premise

Each of the Economic Merit Prize winners from the last 25 years is covered by the Acme plan.

Evaluate

This argument has a 3-part structure.

Claim 1. Since [Claim 2], Claim 3.

The "since" guarantees that Claim 3 is a conclusion based on Claim 2. However, there are also some keywords within Claim 2.

Claim 1. Thus clearly Claim 2.

The "thus clearly" indicates that Claim 2 is a conclusion built on Claim 1. So we can potentially call out a flaw in how we get from Claim 1 to Claim 2, or in how we get from Claim 2 to Claim 3.

Given That all the Economic Merit Prize winners are covered by Acme, How Could We Say That they do not clearly recognize its a plan that offers them a financially secure future?

Maybe they're on the Acme plan for some other reason (the free airline points? they can't afford better? it's their idol Alan Greenspan's favorite plan?).

What about the move from claim 2 to claim 3.

Given That all the Economic Merit Prize winners recognize that Acme offers them a secure future, How Could We Say That it probably would not be a good plan for people with similar retirement needs?

It's pretty hard to think of a good counterargument here. We would usually try to argue that the winners of the Economic Merit Prize are atypical people, so what's good for them wouldn't be good for others.

But this conclusion is very qualified and nuanced -- it would probably be a good plan for people with similar needs.

There's still room for these Economic Merit Prize nerds to be different from people with similar retirement needs, but I can't think of any storyline offhand for what would make a plan good for their future but not for someone with similar needs.

Goal

I would not know exactly what I'm looking for here.

We need an answer resisting the move from , or an answer resisting the move from .

20.

The advertisement's argumentation is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  1. It ignores the possibility that

    Doesn't Weaken

    If the Economic Merit Prize winners from the prior 25 year period all used the Alpha retirement plan, does that hurt the author's argument or conclusion? No, because the author never said that Acme was the only good plan or the best plan, just a good plan.

    4% picked this

  2. It fails to address adequately

    Doesn't Weaken

    This is very similar to (A). If there are other plans that would also offer the Economic Merit Prize winners a secure future, does that hurt the author's argument or conclusion? No, because the author never said that Acme was the only good plan or the best plan, just a good plan. The existence of other good plans doesn't weaken the claim that Acme is a good plan.

    6% picked this

  3. It appeals to the fact

    Didn't Happen

    The experts (supposedly) would endorse or recognize that ACME is good for them, but nothing in the paragraph says that the Economic Merit Prize winners endorse the idea that ACME is probably a good plan for anyone with similar retirement needs. So the supposed experts did not ever endorse the main conclusion.

    21% picked this

  4. Correct

    It takes for granted that

    Why this is right

    Is the author assuming that some of the EMP's deliberately selected ACME rather than having their bosses choose it for them? Yes. The author goes from "they're covered by Acme" to "they clearly recognize that Acme offers them a secure future". He's assuming, in making that move, that they chose to be covered by Acme. If we negated the assumption this answer is describing, it would mean that "none of the EMP winners picked Acme for themselves; they all had it assigned to them by their employers". That would badly weaken the argument (specifically the move from the Premise to the Intermediate Conclusion). The author is trying to make it seem like the smartest economists in the world looked around at all the retirement plans, and they all decided on Acme, because they thought it would provide them a financially secure future. If instead they are just all assigned this retirement plan, they might find it to be a crappy plan, but it is what it is — if that's the retirement plan their company uses, then they're on it anyway.

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

    52% picked this

  5. It presumes, without providing justification,

    Too Strong

    The author doesn't need to assume that every single one of the Economic Merit Prize winners has retirement needs that are identical to the audience's needs. The conclusion is just saying that "if you have similar needs, the Acme plan will probably be a good one".

    16% 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