Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S3 · Q10 Advertisement: VIVVY, a video-based

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

Advertisement: VIVVY, a video-based foreign language course for children, was introduced seventeen years ago.

Conclusion (So)

If you child uses VIVVY, you can expect him or her to become a successful university student.

Evidence

Amy, Matt, and Evelyn were among the first children to use it, and they are successful university students.

Evaluate

Parallel Flaw usually gives us argument with a lot of conditionals or quantifiers (which we can diagram), or they give us one of the Top 6 Famous Flaws:

- Necessary vs. Sufficient - Part vs. Whole - Ad Hominem - Unproven vs. Proven False - Causal - Sampling

This argument could technically be categorized as either of the last two. The Causal flaw is when an author overconfidently assumes one possible explanation for a curious fact, when other possible explanations could exist.

Here, our author is assuming that using VIVVY was an important causal factor in these three kids becoming successful university students. But how do we know if VIVVY made any difference? Maybe they also had a lot of after school tutoring. Maybe they studied really hard. The author is taking this one causal possibility and acting like it definitely happened.

The other flaw we could complain about is the Sample. Our author is promising every parent that if their child uses VIVVY, they can expect the same thing that happened when Amy, Matt, and Evelyn used it.

What if our kids are different from Amy, Matt, and Evelyn?!

The argument's sample size is crazy small. Because 3 users went on to be successful university students we should believe that every user will have the same experience?

Goal

Look for an argument that commits a Sampling flaw (sample size = too small) and/or look for an argument that fails to consider other causal explanations.

10.

Which one of the following demonstrates most effectively by parallel reasoning that the argument in the advertisement is flawed?

  1. Correct

    Similarly, you could conclude that

    Why this is right

    This argument also has a really small sample (again, just 3 people), and it assumes that what happened to them when they carried a good-luck charm (winning the lottery) will happen to all of us if we carry a good-luck charm. The author is implicitly assuming that the good-luck charm played some meaningful causal role, when we could explain the lotto winning different ways.

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

    90% picked this

  2. Similarly, you could conclude that

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This can't replicate the Sampling flaw because this conclusion isn't a general claim. It's specifically about Jesse. To replicate the Sampling move, we need to go from "Since X was true about this small group who did Y, then anyone who does Y will get X."

    0% picked this

  3. Similarly, you could conclude that

    Bad Conclusion Match Valid Logic

    This can't replicate the Sampling flaw because this conclusion isn't a general claim. It's specifically about Eric, Diane, and Martin. It also happens to be pretty valid logic, since there is a conditional that says "if you were hired in the last year, then you can expect to be laid off".

    2% picked this

  4. Similarly, you could conclude that

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This can't replicate the Sampling flaw because this conclusion isn't a general claim. It's specifically about Ken, Norma, and Mary. To replicate the Sampling move, we need to go from "Since X was true about this small group who did Y, then anyone who does Y will get X." This argument happens to be reading a conditional backwards. It said, "If you routinely speed, you'll get a speeding ticket", and then it assumes that people who get speeding tickets automatically can be known to routinely speed.

    3% picked this

  5. Similarly, you could conclude that

    Bad Conclusion Match Reversed Parts

    Wow, all four answers had a disqualifying conclusion right out of the gate. Again, this can't replicate the Sampling flaw because this conclusion isn't a general claim. It's specifically about Jack, Stephen, and Tina. To replicate the Sampling move, we need to go from "Since X was true about this small group who did Y, then anyone who does Y will get X." This argument is a little more tempting because it does have a generalization and a sample. But the generalization is one of the premises. And the dubious sample is the conclusion.

    5% 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