Logical Reasoning

PT120 · S3 · Q8 Consumer advocate: There is ample

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

Consumer advocate: There is ample evidence that the model of car one drives greatly affects the chances that one’s car will be stolen.

Conclusion (ample evidence that)

The model of car one drives greatly affects the chances that one's car will be stolen.

Evidence

The model of car stolen most often in our country last year, for example, was also the model stolen most often in the preceding year.

Evaluation

Since the author's evidence is a statistic and her conclusion is assuming a causal explanation for that statistic ("affects" = causal), we can use our Explain Curious Fact framework.

Curious Fact ... why is the car that was stolen the most two years ago the same model as the car that was stolen the most last year?

Author's Explanation ... it must be that this model is super desirable. Thieves apparently really want this model and seek it out. So when people choose to drive this model of car they're making it more likely that their car will be stolen.

We want always consider 2 things: - could there be some Alternate Explanation for the curious fact? - how plausible is the Author's Explanation?

However, on Flaw questions, more than 90% of the time the correct answer cares about the author's failure to consider Alternate Explanations (we call this the Causal flaw, and it's one of the 10 famous flaws).

So what could be a different way to explain why the same model of car has won the title of "stolen most often" two years in a row? Is it really that thieves desire that specific model?

Maybe it's just that this model happens to be really easy to break into; maybe it's an economy model and the people who can only afford to buy this modest car cannot afford to invest in other anti-theft devices. Thus it's not the model of car affecting their chance of the car being stolen, it's the fact that the people who buy this model don't put any anti-theft devices onto the car.

Or maybe it's just the most common car, period. In America, there was a long stretch of years where the Honda Civic was the #1 most frequently bought car. All other things being equal, that would lead to the Honda Civic being the model of car most often stolen. It's not because thieves are seeking out that model. It's because they find Civics everywhere they look.

Goal

Look for an answer saying that the author is overconfidently assuming one potential explanation for the Curious Fact, failing to consider alternative explanations for why the same model of car has been "most stolen" two years running.

8.

The consumer advocate's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. Correct

    fails to address adequately the

    Why this is right

    Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Weaken question. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- that model of car that's been #1 for car thefts the past two years is just the most common model of car"? Yes, because that would provide an Alternate Explanation for the evidence. The author thinks that the Civic is getting the "most stolen" trophy because thieves specifically want that model of car. But this answer is saying, "No, thieves are just stealing what's available." If we all have a 1% chance of having our car stolen, regardless of what model we drive, then which ever model of car is most common will be the model that is most often stolen. There might be 1000 Teslas and 100,000 Civics, and if in both cases 1% of owners will have their cars stolen, then 10 Teslas and 1,000 Civics will be stolen.

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

    81% picked this

  2. fails to address adequately the

    Not an Objection

    Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Weaken question. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- the age of a car also affects its chances of being stolen"? No, because the author never said that "model type is the only / the main factor that affects likelihood of being stolen". If I say, "smoking two packs of cigarettes a day greatly affects your chances of getting cancer", you can't counter that by saying, "Other things also affect your chances of getting cancer".

    2% picked this

  3. fails to address adequately the

    Not an Alternative Explanation

    Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Weaken question. Would it hurt the argument if we said, "Hey, author -- that model of car that's been stolen most-often for the past tow years is stolen because it has a very high resale value"? At first that might feel like an Alternate Explanation, but since the resale value of a car is very related to the model type, this could actually still conform to the author's causal story. If you choose to drive a model of car (like say, a Toyota Prius) that has a high resale value, then you're providing car thieves with a higher incentive for stealing your car. Thus, the model of car you drive is affecting the chances that your car gets stolen. When we compare this "alternative explanation" to that in (A), this one makes it seem like "there's something special about that model of car that makes it more attractive to thieves". In (A), it was just a mathematical explanation. There wasn't something special about the Civic that made it more a more attractive model to steal. There are just way more of them on the road, so even if every car is equally likely to be stolen, the Civic is the model of car that would be stolen most often.

    5% picked this

  4. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Too Strong: only

    Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Necessary Assumption question. Did this argument need to assume that, "the only thing thieves consider is model type"? No, that's way too strong. The author is definitely assuming that "one of the things that thieves consider is model type", but it doesn't need to be the only thing.

    11% picked this

  5. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Not Assumed: should override

    Whenever a Flaw answer choice begins with presumes / takes for granted, we can treat the idea that follows as though we're doing a Necessary Assumption question. Did this argument need to assume that, "likelihood of getting your car stolen should override other considerations in deciding which car to buy"? No, the author isn't offering any advice about which car to buy, so she isn't making any assumptions about what we should / shouldn't do.

    2% 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