Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q15 Columnist: Many car manufacturers

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: Many car manufacturers trumpet their cars' fuel economy under normal driving conditions.

Evidence

For all three of the cars I have owned, I have been unable to get even close to the fuel economy that manufacturers advertise for cars of those makes.

Conclusion

Manufacturers probably inflate those numbers [fuel economy under normal driving conditions].

Evaluate

There are a few possible flaws with this argument. The columnist doesn't tell us whether or not she drove her three cars under the type of "normal driving conditions" that the manufacturers base their numbers on. Maybe the columnist drives her Toyota Corolla like a Formula 1 race car. Maybe her three "cars" were actually pickup trucks that she mostly used to haul cinderblocks and go four-wheeling up in the mountains.

The core issue here is that the columnist bases her claim solely on the three vehicles she has owned. It's entirely possible that most drivers do get fuel economy that's comparable to the manufacturers' numbers. The columnist's experiences could be different for any number of reasons.

Goal

Look for an answer to indicate that the argument contains a sample flaw. The evidence is based on too small of a sample to fully support the conclusion.

15.

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

  1. Correct

    draws a conclusion on the

    Why this is right

    The columnist is basing her claim solely on the three cars that she has driven.

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

    79% picked this

  2. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Sampling Out of Scope

    This could be a type of sampling flaw, but nothing indicates that the columnists's argument or the manufacturer's numbers were based on specific geographical regions. Without having more information, geographical regions seem to be completely outside the scope of this argument.

    14% picked this

  3. overlooks the possibility that the

    Inappropriate Appeals

    It's hard to know which "source" this answer choice refers to. The columnist? She's basing her conclusion on too small of a sample, but there's no evidence that she's biased against car manufacturers. Are the car manufacturers biased? Any bias on their part doesn't indicate a flaw in the argument. If anything, that would lend support to the conclusion.

    2% picked this

  4. presumes, without providing justification, that

    Out of Scope

    This isn't something that the argument assumes. No part of the argument addresses minimum fuel efficiency standards.

    4% picked this

  5. uses the term "fuel economy"

    Equivocation

    The argument does not use this term in a way that means two different things.

    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