Logical Reasoning

PT128 · S3 · Q12 Clothes dryers manufactured by Archway

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

Clothes dryers manufactured by Archway Appliances, Inc. are of poor quality.

Conclusion (So)

Archway must use shoddy, substandard components in its clothes dryers.

Evidence

Their dryers are of poor quality. Crucial bolts are missing. Some sections are assembled in the wrong order, creating a shock and fire hazard. Concern for safety and quality is very lacking.

Evaluate

We should be curious about this brand new term in the conclusion, shoddy, substandard components. Where does the evidence ever talk about cheap parts?

- crucial bolts are missing (okay, but maybe the bolts that are there are high quality bolts) - sections are assembled in the wrong order (okay, but maybe the sections are constructed from high quality components) - concern for safety and quality is very lacking (okay, but maybe we just mean the overall safety and quality of the product, not the quality of its component parts)

Wait a sec ... is this Part vs. Whole? The argument is establishing that the dryer as a whole is shoddy and substandard, and then it's concluding that the parts used in the dryer must therefore be shoddy and substandard.

Goal

If this were a regular Flaw question stem ("how is this argument vulnerable to criticism"), then we would look for an answer calling out the famous Part vs. Whole flaw.

But since the question stem has baked in the "fails to consider" prefix, we'll really just be interpreting all these answer choices as though we're doing a Weaken question.

So we want a way to argue that you could potentially build a terrible dryer out of high quality parts (if some parts were missing and sections were assembled in the wrong order).

12.

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider the possibility that

there is not a single
Unrelated to Parts
This answer tries to minimize the overall concern about the crappy quality of these dryers by saying, "even though there's a shock and fire hazard created, it doesn't seem like there's been any actual cases of that yet". But we're looking for an answer that specifically helps us argue that the components could be high quality.
2% picked this
there are aspects of dryer
No Impact
This has nothing to do with our goal of arguing that even though the dryer is crappy overall, the component parts might be of fine quality.
16% picked this
Archway's dryers consistently perform well
No Impact
This has nothing to do with our goal of arguing that even though the dryer is crappy overall, the component parts might be of fine quality.
2% picked this
Correct
a shoddily constructed appliance can
Why this is right
This perfectly talks about the gap between the evidence (this appliance overall is shoddily constructed) and the conclusion (the parts this appliance is made from must be shoddy). This answer basically calls out the flawed Whole to Part move that the argument commits. Just because the Whole has the property of being shoddy doesn't mean the component parts also have that quality.
Skill tested: Weaken · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
78% picked this
Archway's other product lines exhibit
Less About the Reasoning
This answer does weaken somewhat. If the company is known to use high-quality components in other product lines, then it hurts the plausibility that they use shoddy components in this product line. But when we compare (D) to (E), which one better shows how this reasoning is vulnerable to criticism? (E) only goes after the conclusion. (D) goes after the reasoning, because it attacks the assumed link between the evidence and the conclusion.
1% 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