Logical Reasoning

PT140 · S3 · Q18 A recent magazine article argued

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

A recent magazine article argued that most companies that do not already own videoconferencing equipment would be wasting their money if they purchased it.

Conclusion

This is clearly not true. (i.e. most companies would not be wasting their money if they purchased videoconferencing equipment)

Evidence

In a recent survey of businesses that have purchased videoconferencing equipment, most respondents stated that the equipment was well worth the cost.

Evaluate

Given that most of the people who bought videoconferencing equipment said it was worth the cost, the author is concluding that most companies would find it worth their money.

So the author is assuming that the businesses that have bought videoconferencing equipment are representative of most companies.

If we were trying to accept the evidence but fight the conclusion, we might say stuff like this:

- the people who bought videoconferencing equipment did so a long time ago, before there was stuff like Zoom / Google Meet / etc. It was "well worth the cost" to them, because they didn't have a great, free alternative when they bought it. However, nowadays, it wouldn't be worth it to most companies, because nowadays there are better cheaper options than buying your own videoconferencing equipment

- maybe the people who bought the equipment are the businesses for whom it would make the most sense. For example, do most businesses need to buy a greenscreen and professional lighting, so that they can shoot really slick corporate videos? No, but some do. If you're part of the 10% of businesses that need to produce really slick corporate videos then you'll probably invest in the greenscreen and pro lighting. If someone surveys you about whether the cost was worth it, you'll say "Sure!" But that doesn't mean that it would be worth it to most companies, because most companies don't need to make slick corporate videos.

Goal

Look for an answer pointing out the Sampling flaw (we're assuming that the people who bought this equipment already are representative of most companies, when maybe they're an atypical subset of businesses for whom videoconferencing is worth the cost).

Or look for an answer pointing out the Temporal comparison (maybe videoconferencing equipment was well worth the cost back when these companies bought it, but it would no longer be true that it's worth buying such equipment).

18.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument

concludes that something is worth
Bad Evidence Match
When an answer choice on Flaw is structured like, concludes that X merely on the grounds that Y infers X from the claim that Y we can ask ourselves, "does X match the conclusion / does Y match the evidence?" Is our conclusion saying that "something is worth its cost"? Yes, more or less. The conclusion is saying most companies wouldn't be wasting their money if they purchased videoconferencing equipment, which essentially means "it would be worth the cost". Is the only piece of evidence ("merely") the claim that "many businesses have purchased it"? No. The evidence is a survey of businesses that have purchased it, and the fact that most of them vouched for the value of the equipment is the main premise. This answer choice is accusing the argument of being as simple as, "Since many people bought the new selfie stick, that selfie stick must be worth the cost."
8% picked this
takes a condition sufficient to
Not Necessary vs. Sufficient
This answer choices invokes the #1 most famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw, in which the author presents a conditional relationship in the evidence and then applies that relationship in a backwards or opposite fashion to reach her conclusion. There's no conditional logic anywhere in this paragraph, so it's a non-starter.
11% picked this
rejects a position merely on
Trap
Not Unproven vs. Proven False Bad Evidence Match This answer choices describes the famous Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, in which the author says that "since they failed to prove that X is true, X must be false". This argument does indeed reject a position in its concusion. But is the evidence saying, "here's the argument made in favor of the position. Check out its flaws / inadequacy." Instead, the evidence is saying, "Hey, I've got some survey results here (some new counterevidence of my own) that seems to argue against their position."
5% picked this
Correct
relies on a sample that
Why this is right
This calls out the Sampling flaw. The argument definitely relies on a sample (the recent survey of businesses that have purchased videoconferencing equipment). Why is it reasonable to suppose that people who have already purchased videoconferencing equipment are unrepresentative of most companies? It's the idea of a self-selecting sample. If we asked people who bought an iPhone rather than a Samsung, "do you think you chose well?", we're naturally going to get a majority of people saying Yes. But that's because we're talking to people who thought about the tradeoffs between the two phones and decided that for them it made more sense to go with the iPhone. That doesn't mean that for other people the same would apply. Maybe a cleaner example would be to ask people who graduated from dental school whether they are happy with their decision. If 85% of them say yes, would we conclude, "Oh, then most people would be happy to go through dental school"? Of course not. Most of us don't want to be dentists, but the ones who do go to dental school and are by and large pleased with their choice. Similarly, most businesses don't need videoconferencing equipment (I'm looking at you, Plumbers), but the minority of businesses who do will buy it and find it worth the cost. If you want to try a somewhat similar problem, try this one.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
61% picked this
confuses the cost of an
Doesn't Confuse
The evidence is talking about whether not something is "worth the cost", and the conclusion is about whether or not most businesses would be "wasting their money". In both cases, those expression convey an awareness of the balance between cost and value. When value meets or exceeds cost, it's worth it / it's not a waste.
15% 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