Salespeople always steer customers

Answer choices

1. A

   Wrong Flaw: not Circular2% picked this

   offers as a premise a claim that merely paraphrases the conclusion and for which no

   This describes the famous Circular reasoning flaw, in which we say that the premise is restating the conclusion or assuming the truth of the conclusion. The two premises here were "salespeople work on commission" and "salespeople steer toward products with higher commissions". Neither one of those is a paraphrase of the conclusion, which is "claims are inaccurate".

   2%
2. B

   Correct78% picked this

   infers that some claims are inaccurate solely on the basis of the source

   Why this is right

   Does the conclusion infer that "some claims are inaccurate"? Yes, it infers that "all claims made by salespeople at major health stores are inaccurate". Does it do so on the basis of evidence that is about who is making those claims? Yes, it tries to invalidate the legitimacy of the salespeople's claims, because they are salespeople who are steering customers toward higher-commission products out of their own self-interest. This describes the famous Ad Hominem flaw, in which we dismiss someone's views or claims because of who they are, not what they said. In general, Ad Hominem arguments say, "Don't listen to X. He's got a vested interest in this matter", or "Don't listen to X. His past behavior / statements don't line up with what he's telling you now." LSAT wants us to deal with people's ideas head-on, and evaluate their legitimacy based on evidence and soundness, not based on any tangential qualities about the source itself.

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

   78%
3. C

   Wrong Flaw: not Whole to Part12% picked this

   infers that just because a group of people has a certain property, each member of the

   This describes the famous Whole to Part flaw, in which an author assumes that a trait that's true of a collective is therefore true of each part of the collective. Did the conclusion of this argument infer that "each member of a group of people has a certain property"? No, we can't really match that. The conclusion was that "the claims made by a certain group of people have a certain property".

   12%
4. D

   Wrong Flaw: not Necessary vs. Sufficient7% picked this

   takes a condition that is sufficient for the conclusion to be true as one that is necessary for

   This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which the author presents a conditional logic premise and then applies it in an illegal backwards or opposite fashion to reach the conclusion. Was there any conditional logic in the premise? Yes, there were two conditionals. Salesperson ? steers toward higher commission Salesperson in ? work on commission major health store Committing a Nec vs. Suff flaw with one of those conditionals would sound like one of these arguments: Tanya is not a salesperson. Thus she would not steer someone toward a product that provides a higher commission. Bob works on commission. Thus, he must be a salesperson in a major health store.

   7%
5. E

   Wrong Flaw: not Inappropriate Appeal1% picked this

   relies on the claims of an authority on a topic outside that authority's

   This describes the famous Inappropriate Appeal flaw, in this case an appeal to a dubious expert. But the author's evidence isn't relying on anyone's claim being valid. To the contrary, the author is arguing that the claims made by these salespeople are invalid.

   1%