Logical Reasoning

PT127 · S3 · Q4 The manufacturers of NoSmoke claim

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

The manufacturers of NoSmoke claim that their product reduces smokers' cravings for cigarettes.

Conclusion (thus)

If testing shows the 2nd ingredient doesn't decrease cravings, then NoSmoke does not reduce smokers' cravings.

Evidence (since

In a study, smokers given the main ingredient in NoSmoke reported no decrease in cravings.

There's only one other ingredient in NoSmoke.

Evaluation

This is a Famous Flaw called Part vs. Whole. Even if each part doesn't reduce cravings, the whole of NoSmoke (the combined chemistry of those two ingredients) might still reduce cravings.

Analogy: A water manufacturer claimed that his product was wet. However, we tested all the hydrogen atoms and found they were not wet. Since the only other ingredient in water is oxygen atoms, if similar results are found for oxygen atoms, then we can conclude that water is not wet.

Goal

Look for Part vs. Whole language or something that expresses the potential objection of,

4.

The argument above is flawed in that it

  1. Correct

    illicitly presumes that a whole

    Why this is right

    The author assumes that if each of the two ingredients in NoSmoke fail to reduce cravings, then NoSmoke as a whole must fail to reduce cravings. This answer correctly describes the author's illegal Part to Whole move.

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

    85% picked this

  2. confuses a mere correlation with

    Trap

    Not Correlation vs. Causation / Bad Conclusion Match The author is concluding that NoSmoke does not cause a reduction in cravings, so we definitely can't accuse her of inferring causality based on a correlation.

    4% picked this

  3. relies on a sample that

    Trap

    Not Sampling / Too Strong: "likely to be representative" The author does introduce a study, which is a sample of sorts. However, we have no information about the study (how many people were tested? how diverse/representative?). When LSAT wants us to criticize the sample for being too small or biased in some way, they give us something to go off of. We have no way to say this study is likely to be unrepresentative.

    3% picked this

  4. overlooks the possibility that NoSmoke

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: "other than reducing cravings" Does it weaken the argument if we learn that NoSmoke helps people quit in some other way? Not at all. The author wasn't concluding, "Thus, NoSmoke is useless for helping people quit smoking". She more narrowly claimed, "Thus, NoSmoke doesn't reduce cravings".

    8% picked this

  5. illicitly presumes that a claim

    Not Ad Hominem / Bad Premise Match

    This refers to the famous flaw Ad Hominem, but our author doesn't invalidate NoSmoke's claims by pointing to the biased interests of the people claiming it. She tries to invalidate their claims by pointing to studies that seem to undermine the claim.

    0% 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