Logical Reasoning

PT143 · S3 · Q18 Consumer advocate: Manufacturers of

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

Consumer advocate: Manufacturers of children's toys often place warnings on their products that overstate the dangers their products pose.

Conclusion

Manufacturers of kids' toys shouldn't overstate the dangers of their products.

Evidence

if overstating dangers product-warning doesn't reduce injuries → labels shouldn't overstate

Manufacturers don't overstate dangers for the sake of injuries; they do it for the sake of lawsuits.

Evaluate

The author provided us with a conditional rule (only if = right side, Necessary, indicator), and her conclusion matches the outcome of that rule.

So did her evidence establish the trigger of that rule? Did she establish that overstating dangers on labels doesn't reduce injuries?

Nope. She just said that manufacturers overstate dangers for a different reason. But their overstating may still be having the effect of reducing injuries!

This is probably the 11th or 12th most common famous flaw: Intent vs. Consequence (i.e. motive vs. result)

Even though the manufacturers aren't intending to reduce injuries, that may still be the result/consequence of their action.

Goal

Look for an answer raising the possibility that the overstated warning are reducing injuries, calling out the author's assumption that the warnings aren't reducing injuries, or pointing our how the author is assuming that

18.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a reasoning flaw in the consumer advocate's argument?

  1. The argument confuses a necessary

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the #1 most common famous flaw: Necessary vs. Sufficient, in which the author provides a conditional (if X, then Y) and then makes a backwards or reversed argument: Bob is Y. Bob is not X. So, Bob is X. So, Bob is not Y. There was conditional logic here (only if), so we should definitely consider this answer. But the problem wasn't that the author used the conditional in a reversed or negated fashion; it was just that the author never triggered the conditional. Since the conditional was (doesn't reduce injuries ? shouldn't overstate), then an argument committing this error would say one of these two: Overstating does reduce injuries. Thus, X should overstate. X should not have overstated. Thus, apparently overstating didn't reduce injuries.

    4% picked this

  2. The argument overlooks the possibility

    Not an Objection

    This would only hurt your point of view if your point of view were that "Every warning that avoided overstating dangers (they correctly-stated or understated danger) has always reduced injuries". Our author definitely didn't hold that crazy position. If we're weakening this argument, the Anti-Conclusion we're arguing is that "it still might be that manufacturers should overstate the dangers" (even if they're not doing it to reduce injuries, it might be reducing injuries, and that could be a good reason to overstate the dangers).

    8% picked this

  3. The argument relies on a

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous Sampling flaw, but this argument doesn't appeal to any sample in its evidence. It refers to everything in categorical language. It never shifts from talking about "these manufacturers" to some bigger group of people. All three references are to the same category name: Manufacturers often overstate. Manufacturers overstate only to avoid lawsuits. Manufacturers should not overstate.

    0% picked this

  4. The argument presumes, without providing

    Bad Evidence / Conclusion Match

    Since this answer says "presumes", we analyze it like Necessary Assumption. Whenever we see conditional answers on Necessary Assumption, we can ask ourselves whether the author made that move. Did our author go from saying "Since this warning overstates a danger, we can conclude that it will fail to prevent injuries"? No the author went from saying "Since these warnings were written merely to protect the company from lawsuits, we can conclude that these warnings should not be on the toys." We would also be fine with an answer pointing out the author's assumption, "Since these warning were written merely to protect the company from lawsuits, we can conclude that these lawsuits do NOT help to reduce injuries."

    11% picked this

  5. Correct

    The argument relies on the

    Why this is right

    Well, this ended up basically testing the famous flaw Intent vs. Consequence Taking the contrapositive of this "only if" idea, we can see this answer is accusing the author of making this move: if an action wasn't that action won't have performed to bring ? the effect of bringing about X about X Did the author make that sort of move? Yes, the author assumes that since the action (overstated warning) wasn't performed to bring about [injury reduction], it was done merely to avoid lawsuits we can infer the action (overstated warning) didn't have the effect of bringing about [injury reduction]. We know the author assumed this second idea, because her argument looks like this: if doesn't reduce injuries, shouldn't overstate. M's don't overstate in order to reduce injuries. (assumption: overstating doesn't reduce injuries) Thus, M's shouldn't overstate.

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

    76% 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