Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S1 · Q15 Often, a product popularly believed

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

Often, a product popularly believed to be the best of its type is no better than any other; rather, the product’s reputation, which may be independent of its quality, provides its owner with status.

Conclusion

It's fine to pay for status if that's what you want, but you should know when you're paying for a more expensive product that you're paying for prestige, not more quality.

Evidence

It's often the case that a product most people believe is the best of its type is actually no better than competing products; it's just that the reputation provides the owner with status.

Evaluate

This argument didn't contain any conditional logic or quantifiers, so it's probably not worth trying to turn it into an algebraic recipe.

Instead, we can ask ourselves what general principle is operating under the surface, or what the "moral to the story is".

The author seems to more or less be saying, .

Goal

I'm a little tentative about how this answer is going to look, but I'm anticipating a comparison between two things, which are basically equally good other than some tangential difference, even though one is more "expensive"? Then the conclusion should probably say, .

15.

Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?

  1. Often, choosing the best job

    Weak Evidence/Conclusion Match

    In the original argument, the comparison between Product X (believed to be best of its type) and competing products had nothing to do with comparing the downsides. And the conclusion wasn't saying, "Watch out — your choice may have an upside but also a downside". The conclusion was saying, "You're not choosing based on this upside (quality), but rather based on that upside (prestige)."

    8% picked this

  2. Most people have little tolerance

    Bad Match

    It's hard to even get off the ground with this one. There's no choice between options, which are equally good except for some tangential concern. And the conclusion here doesn't sound anything like, "Just be aware that you're putting extra into this choice for the tangential concern, not the primary concern".

    1% picked this

  3. Those beginning a new hobby

    Bad Match

    Again, the evidence seems to have nothing to do with choosing between options of equal quality. And the conclusion isn't saying, "You should realize that your extra investment is for thing X, not thing Y". This conclusion is offering advice that makes a causal prediction: "you're more likely to get X if you do Y"

    3% picked this

  4. Correct

    Personal charm is often confused

    Why this is right

    This is a decent match, but really it's just better than all our alternatives. It's suggesting that people often confuse charm with virtue, which is similar to saying that people often believe a product is the best because of its reputation rather than its quality. "Quality" and "virtue" make some sense as a match, whereas charm / reputation is more of a superficial quality. The original conclusion was saying, "just be aware you're paying extra for reputation, not quality", which is similar to saying, "just realize that you're befriending someone for their charm, not their virtue (of being a good/loyal friend)." It's a very weak match, since in the original argument people are able to choose between different products of the same type. It's not clear that when you befriend a charming person, you were able to choose between different friends of the same type. And the original conclusion implied, "You'll get quality either way, but you're paying extra for prestige". This answer's conclusion is more like, "You're getting charm (prestige), but you might not get virtue (quality)." This is a good reminder that we're looking for best available answer, not perfect answer.

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

    82% picked this

  5. Many theatrical actors cannot enjoy

    Bad Match

    The conclusion here is instructing people to stop having a certain behavior. The original conclusion was much less overbearing. It was only telling us to be mindful of something, should we choose to do it. And the evidence doesn't have any feel of "underlying quality vs. some sort of superficial appeal".

    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.

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