Logical Reasoning

PT139 · S4 · Q16 Salespeople always steer customers

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

Salespeople always steer customers toward products from which they make their highest commissions, and all salespeople in major health stores work on commission.

Conclusion (hence)

When you buy vitamin supplements in a major health store, you can be sure that the claims the salespeople make about the quality of the products are inaccurate.

Evidence

In a major health store, salespeople always work on commission and always steer customers toward products from which they make their highest commissions.

Evaluate

The conclusion is very strongly worded. You can be sure that all the claims the salespeople make about the quality of the products is inaccurate? Where does the author come off, acting this skeptical?

Her evidence is that the salespeople are motivated by commission. She's thinking,

But how do we know these claims are inaccurate? Isn't it possible that the highest quality products also have the highest commission?

Goal

One of the ten famous flaws is Ad Hominem, where we dismiss the merit of someone's ideas because they have a vested interest / ulterior motive in the conversation, or because they have conflicting past behavior. This definitely seems like a case of the former.

The author thinks that . We can call out the Ad Hominem flaw or point out the possibility that their interests and the truth may converge --- it might be that their quality claims are sometimes true, even while they're steering you toward the products that provide them with the highest commission.

16.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

  1. offers as a premise a

    Wrong Flaw: not Circular

    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% picked this

  2. Correct

    infers that some claims are

    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% picked this

  3. infers that just because a

    Wrong Flaw: not Whole to Part

    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% picked this

  4. takes a condition that is

    Wrong Flaw: not Necessary vs. Sufficient

    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% picked this

  5. relies on the claims of

    Wrong Flaw: not Inappropriate Appeal

    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.

    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