Logical Reasoning

PT123 · S2 · Q4 Consumer: The latest Connorly Report suggests

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: The latest Connorly Report suggests that Ocksenfrey prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value.

Main Conclusion (it is clear that)

Ocksenfrey‘s prepackaged meals really are nutritious.

The latest Connorly Report suggests that Ocksenfrey prepackaged meals are virtually devoid of nutritional value.

Intermediate Conclusion (obviously / because)

The Connorly Report (which suggested that O's prepackaged meals are devoid of nutritional value) is obviously biased.

Evidence (and)

The Connorly Report is commissioned by Danto Foods, Ocksenfrey’s largest corporate rival.

Early drafts of the report are submitted for approval to Danto Foods’ public relations department.

Evaluate

The author has definitely given us some grounds for being suspicious about whether things that appear in the Connorly Report are meant to benefit Danto Foods.

But just because an idea would benefit Danto Foods doesn't mean it's untrue. It might be that Ocksenfrey's boxed meals are very bad nutritionally. If so, it would make sense that a publication friendly with Ocksenfrey's rival would publicize this fact.

The author is trying to use the existence of bias / ulterior motive as a way to prove that the claims made are false, that the meals are actually quite nutritious.

The fact that a source is biased or stands to gain does not allow us to dismiss their claims as false or meritless.

Goal

We call this Ad Hominem, one of the 10 famous flaws. LSAT usually says something to the effect of .

4.

The reasoning in the consumer's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument

  1. Correct

    treats evidence that there is

    Why this is right

    This describes the relationship between the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion.

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

    86% picked this

  2. draws a conclusion based solely

    Wrong Flaw - Sampling

    The evidence does not include a sample of Ocksenfrey’s products. This is just Famous Flaw bait, since Sampling is one of the 10 famous flaws.

    3% picked this

  3. fails to take into account

    Bad Objection

    Since this has the "fails to consider / overlooks possibility" opener, we can ask ourselves if this would weaken the argument. Does it the hurt the argument if we say, "Hey, author, Ocks has just as much motivation to smear Danto as Danto does to smear Ocks"? No. The author could just say, "Sure I agree. We shouldn't trust what bad things Danto says about Ocks, and we shouldn't trust what bad things Ocks says about Danto."

    3% picked this

  4. fails to provide evidence that

    Bad Assumption: Irrelevant Comparison

    "takes for granted / fails to establish / fails to provide evidence" means we're hearing something the argument supposedly needed to assume. Did the argument need to assume that "D's meals are not more nutritious than O's"? No, if we negate that assumption and say, "Hey, author, D's meals are more nutritious than O's", that doesn't hurt the author. She is only arguing about whether or not O's meals are nutritious, never about whether they are more or less nutritious than some other thing (this is a switch from Absolute language to Relative language).

    4% picked this

  5. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Bad Assumption - Irrelevant Quality

    Did the argument need to assume that "Danto's PR dept would not approve a draft of a report that's hostile to Danto products"? This is off topic. The argument is about Ocksenfrey's products, a that is hostile to their products, and whether those products are / aren't nutritious. The author doesn't need to assume anything about a report hostile to Danto's foods. If we negated this assumption, "Danto's PR dept would approve a draft of a report that was hostile to Danto", that might feel like it weakens by suggesting that the PR department isn't biased, but it's not much proof that they aren't biased, and we're not really trying to fight the idea that they're biased. We're trying to accept that CR might be a biased report, but find a way to say, "That still doesn't prove that Ocksenfrey's boxed meals are nutritious."

    4% 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