Logical Reasoning

PT150 · S3 · Q16 Automobile executive: Our critics say

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

Automobile executive: Our critics say that the communications devices installed in our automobiles are dangerously distracting to drivers.

Conclusion

The communications devices installed in our automobiles are not dangerously distracting to drivers.

Evidence

Drivers who want to use communications devices are gonna use them either way. Ours are easier to use, and thus safer.

Evaluate

Does easier = safer? That makes some sense. But if we're trying to Weaken / Object, we need to think of way to argue that,

Even Though the devices are easier to use It Could Still Be True That the devices are dangerously distracting to drivers

What else could be different (besides easier to use) that could help us say that this is a change for the worse?

I picture people who have their smart phones cleverly mounted on the A/C vent of their car. That seems easier to use than my method -- having my phone just laying in the armrest console or on the passenger seat.

It's true that I still use my phone regardless, but if I had my phone mounted on my vent I would probably be inclined to use it a lot more. It's so easy to use, why not check Twitter? Why not text Samantha? Why not pull up a YouTube video for the kids shouting in the back seat?

It's possible that by making something easier to use, it encourages greater use of that thing, and maybe frequent use of a dashboard mounted phone is actually more dangerously distracting to a driver than is occasional use of a less convenient phone on the seat next to you.

Goal

Look for an answer that allows us to agree with "easier" but lets us still argue that these are dangerously distracting.

16.

The reasoning in the automobile executive's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

attempts to apply a general
Out of Scope: inapplicable principle
Is there a general principle? Ummm, not sure. Should we count "if it's easier, it's safer" as a general principle? We probably could, but in that case the principle seems pretty applicable to the conversation at hand.
3% picked this
Correct
fails to address the substantive
Why this is right
What was the substantive point of the criticism? It was that the communications devices installed are dangerously distracting. Did our author respond by arguing that the communications device is not dangerously distracting? Not really. He responded by saying that the device is easier to use than other devices, and drivers who want to use them are gonna use them regardless. We would certainly argue that a dashboard mounted phone is easier to use than a phone laying on the passenger seat, but they are both dangerously distracting. The problem here is really one of Relative vs. Absolute language. The author is trying to make a case that his company's phones are less dangerous than perhaps an alternative phone would be. But it might nevertheless be true in an absolute sense that the company's phones are dangerously distracting.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
79% picked this
treats a condition that is
Wrong Flaw
This describes the famous Necessary vs. Sufficient flaw. Whenever we see this answer choice, we can ask ourselves, "Was there conditional logic in the argument?" If not, then this answer will always be wrong. There was no conditional logic in this argument.
4% picked this
presumes, without providing justification, that
Opposite
First of all, this would probably never be a correct answer, because you're not likely to see an author assuming something so strong as "ALL devices are the SAME". But in this case, our author seems to be assuming / insinuating that their company's devices are not the same, that they are not as dangerous as other communication devices.
11% picked this
is based on premises that
Wrong Flaw
This describes the famous Circular Reasoning flaw, in which the premises restate or assume the truth of the conclusion. This answer is wrong 99% of the time we see it. This had premises such as - drivers who wanna use a device are going to regardless - our device is easier to use - an easier to use device is safer Those aren't restating the conclusion.
4% 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