Logical Reasoning

PT118 · S4 · Q20 Polling data reveal that an overwhelming

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

Polling data reveal that an overwhelming majority of nine-year-olds can correctly identify the logos of major cigarette brands.

Conclusion

There is little or no connection between recognition of cigarette brand logos and smoking.

Evidence

An overwhelming majority of 9 year old's can identify the logos of major cigarette brands. However, less than 1% of those 9 year old's smoke.

Evaluate

How could we argue that, despite this evidence, there is a connection between recognition of cigarette logos and smoking?

We could say,

We could also say,

Goal

Our objections were of two different forms: 1. just because there isn't a visible connection yet, doesn't mean there won't be one eventually (i.e. the author is judging something using too narrow a snapshot of time)

2. just because there isn't a visible connection for 9 year old's doesn't mean there isn't one for other age groups. (i.e. the author is judging something using too narrow a sample of age group)

One way or the other, they're both Sampling flaws. So we should look for an argument that is judging something broad in the conclusion, but relying on a sample that only represents a narrow slice of people / narrow slice of time.

20.

Which one of the following uses flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning above?

  1. Correct

    The concern about the long-term

    Why this is right

    This gets at the same Sampling objection of, "Whoa — you're looking at too narrow a slice of time, there, buddy." The conclusion is trying to gauge the long-term effect on dolphins, but we're only looking at a 3 month sample. Maybe mercury hasn't done anything bad to them yet, but if we check back in a couple years we'll see it has done something bad.

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

    39% picked this

  2. Many ten-year-olds dream of becoming

    Bad Objection Match

    What would be our objection to this argument? - whether a parent discourages a kid doesn't change whether the kid will seriously consider their dream - maybe the "most parents" who discourage competitive career choices doesn't overlap with the "many 10 year old's" who have acting dreams. Neither of those matches well with: "maybe not yet, but eventually it could happen" or "maybe not for these people, but possible for some other group of people"

    1% picked this

  3. Most dentists recommend using fluoride

    Bad Objection Match

    What would be our objection to this argument? - maybe dentists recommend fluoride, not because it's more effective than giving up sweets but because they are realistic that people will not adopt the suggestion to give up sweets. This objection of "maybe that's not happening because of X, but because of Y" doesn't match up well with our objections to the original argument: "maybe not yet, but eventually it could happen" "maybe not for these people, but possible for some other group of people"

    2% picked this

  4. A large percentage of men

    Bad Objection Match

    What would be our objection to this argument? - the argument switches from talking about "average life span" in the evidence to talking about "good health" in the conclusion. This objection of "maybe exercise is correlated with good health, just not correlated with longer life span" doesn't match up well. "maybe not yet, but eventually it could happen" "maybe not for these people, but possible for some other group of people"

    54% picked this

  5. Most people cannot name their

    Bad Objection Match

    What would be our objection to this argument? - just because they have an adequate command of current issues doesn't mean it's fine that they can't name their reps. - maybe it's important to be able to name your reps so that if your rep was in the news for behavior you objected to, you would know (and thus be an informed voter when deciding whether to re-elect that rep). Our objection seems to be something like, "Just because they have this ability doesn't mean it isn't bad that they lack this other ability". Doesn't match either of our objections to the original argument: "maybe not yet, but eventually it could happen" "maybe not for these people, but possible for some other group of people"

    5% 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