Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S3 · Q15 Advertisement: In a carefully controlled

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: In a carefully controlled study, blindfolded volunteers were divided evenly into five groups.

Conclusion (this shows that)

Sparkle Cola elicits a more favorable response from consumers than any of the competing colas tested.

Evidence

Each person in the study tasted Sparkle Cola and one of five competing colas (each group a different cola).

Most of the volunteers said they preferred Sparkle Cola to the competing cola tasted.

Evaluate

Given that ... most of the volunteers picked Sparkle as their preference over the other cola they tasted,

How can we argue that ... Sparkle does not elicit a more favorable response from consumers than any of the competing colas?

The argument is moving from, , so the author is definitely assuming that the sample in this study was big enough, representative enough, unbiased, etc, that it can be trusted as a sample that reflects consumer preferences.

But beyond the Sampling concerns, did the author successfully establish that Sparkle elicited a more favorable response from the study volunteers than did any competing cola tested?

If Soda X were one of the sodas tested and it was actually the #1 favorable response from these study participants, then how come most participants picked Sparkle as their preference?

Well, most participants didn't even get a chance to try Soda X. Only one of the five groups did. Maybe Soda X kicked butt within its group, but Sparkle kicked butt in the other four groups. That could create a situation where most participants ended up picking Sparkle, even though it looks like Soda X is more preferred.

If numbers help, suppose there are 20 people in each of the five groups, and let's say this is how the voting went down.

Soda V (9) vs. Sparkle (11) Soda W (8) vs. Sparkle (12) Soda X (20) vs. Sparkle (0) Soda Y (5) vs. Sparkle (15) Soda Z (6) vs. Sparkle (14)

52 out of the 100 people (most) said they preferred Sparkle to the competing soda. But if we looked at this table of data, we'd still think that Soda X was the winner. Sparkle beat out the other four sodas, but Soda X demolished Sparkle.

Goal

Look for an answer discussing the Sampling move or pointing out that even within the study, it's possible that most votes went to Sparkle even though one of the sodas crushed Sparkle in its head to head.

15.

The reasoning in the advertisement is most vulnerable to criticism on which one of the following grounds?

  1. Correct

    It overlooks the possibility that

    Why this is right

    Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we're trying to judge whether we could use the idea that follows to object to the argument. If there is a generalization true of the entire group, most people picked Sparkle over the competing cola that isn't true for at least one of the smaller groups, in the smaller group that measured Sparkle vs. Soda X, it was not true that most people picked Sparkle over the competing soda. then even though most people picked Sparkle, we still wouldn't say that Sparkle elicited a better response than all the colas tested, since Soda X elicited a better response than Sparkle. This speaks strongly to why it's so important to figure out a problem with the argument before looking at answers, since it can be near impossible to figure out what LSAC is going for with some of these answers if you don't already have the "right idea" in your brain.

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

    73% picked this

  2. It takes for granted that

    Not Assumed: most

    Since this starts with takes for granted / presumes, we can ask ourselves whether the author needed to assume the idea that follows. No the author doesn't have to assume "at least 51% of the volunteers would buy Sparkle". The conclusion has nothing to do with buying and doesn't make any predictions about consumer behavior. If we negated this assumption and said, "No, author, at most 49% of volunteers would buy it when it's not much more expensive", that would hurt this argument. This is only about which soda elicited the most favorable response in a blind taste test, not at all about whether consumers who participated have now had their shopping habits change going forward.

    2% picked this

  3. It overlooks the possibility that

    Out of Scope Objection: not tested

    Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we're trying to judge whether we could use the idea that follows to object to the argument. But we can't object by talking about colas not tested in the study. The conclusion is only about comparing Sparkle to the other colas that were tested.

    18% picked this

  4. It overlooks the possibility that

    Out of Scope Objection

    Since this starts with fails to consider / overlooks the possibility, we're trying to judge whether we could use the idea that follows to object to the argument. Does it hurt the author's argument if we say, "a lot of people prefer Sparkle because of its packing or price, not its taste"? No. First of all, in the study, it was a blind taste test and they didn't have to pay for their sodas, so both packaging and and price are impossible reasons for why the volunteers preferred Sparkle. Secondly, the author's conclusion is not specifically about preferring Sparkle's taste. It's just about Sparkle eliciting a more favorable response, so it only helps the author if we say that many people prefer Sparkle's packaging, or its price. The author doesn't specifically care why it elicits a more favorable response. As long as it elicits a more favorable response, the author's conclusion is still a true statement.

    6% picked this

  5. It is based on a

    Not a Complaint About Logic

    It is true that this argument is based on a study that only elicited responses to colas, but so what? That's not a logical problem with the argument. Both the evidence and the conclusion are only about comparing responses to colas, so the argument's scope stays consistent as it moves from premise to conclusion (which is a good thing).

    1% 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