Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S3 · Q2 Columnist: An information design

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

Columnist: An information design expert has argued that using the popular presentation-graphics software GIAPS, with its autopresentation wizard and simplistic premade templates, leads people to develop ineffective presentations.

Conclusion

It's absurd to say that using GIAPS leads people to develop ineffective presentations. (i.e. using GIAPS doesn't lead to people to develop ineffective presentations)

Evidence

GIAPS is a just a tool, so it can't be responsible for bad presentations. The responsibility lies with the users, who are apparently using this tool poorly.

Evaluate

Can't we sometimes blame the tool for bad output? If I'm trying to make you a great cup of coffee, and my only tool is some $15 percolating coffee machine bought at a Wal-Mart 10 years ago, it doesn't matter how good I am at using that tool, you're getting a mediocre cup of coffee with some gross machine aftertaste.

Similarly, couldn't this Powerpoint-knockoff, GIAPS, be such a bad tool that there's no way to get a good presentation with it? Maybe all the clip-art is corny, the animations are over the top, and the templates aren't well thought out. Maybe they don't give you enough options for customizing the built-in templates, so you're stuck with what they provide.

Goal

Look for an answer complaining that .

2.

The columnist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. bases its conclusion on claims

    Wrong Flaw

    This refers to the famous Internal Contradiction flaw (logically inconsistent = contradictory). The premises do not contradict each other (i.e. we don't have one premise saying 'The sky is blue' and another premise saying 'The sky is not blue')

    3% picked this

  2. takes for granted that any

    Not an Assumption Opposite Logic

    Does our author's argument make this move? If Then this presentation ? it's a good isn't ineffective presentation No. Our author does seem to go from talking about "ineffective presentations" to "bad presentations". But if an author moves from A to B, we can't say that they take for granted that "anything that's not A is not B". That sort of "illegal light switch" move is opposite logic. Furthermore, beyond this opposite logic, we're not really worried about the author treating ineffective and bad as interchangeable adjectives for presentations. We're wondering why he thinks that GIAPS can't possibly be at least partly to blame.

    8% picked this

  3. bases an endorsement of a

    Bad Evidence Match

    This answer choice says that the author is concluding that GIAPS is good (endorsing it) based on only one premise: GIAPS is popular. That doesn't match the argument. The author kind of concludes that GIAPS is not-bad (since he exempts it from possible blame), but his premise has nothing to do with popularity. His premise is that "tools can't be blamed for bad output; only users can".

    0% picked this

  4. Correct

    fails to consider that a

    Why this is right

    Would it weaken to that a tool might not effectively perform its intended function? Sure, that sounds like an objection. Since our job as the Defense lawyer here is to argue that GIAPS can be responsible for bad presentations, we can say, "Yes, it's only a tool, but some tools (like that crappy $15 coffee maker from the discount store) don't perform their intended function effectively". In other words, it wouldn't matter how good a user you were if you're using a tool that doesn't effectively perform its intended function. You might be a skilled manicurist, but if you're using a raggedy pair of nail clippers, you're not going to get good results no matter what.

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

    87% picked this

  5. rejects a claim because of

    Wrong Flaw

    This describes the famous Ad Hominem flaw, in which an author dismisses someone's point of view because that person either has a biased interest or conflicting past behavior. Our author is dismissing someone's point of view, but it's because our author doesn't think that tools can be blamed for poor output. Our author doesn't talk about the information design expert's biased interest or conflicting past behavior.

    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