Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Medium

PT151 S4 Q15 Explanation

Columnist: Many car manufacturers

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Columnist: Many car manufacturers trumpet their cars' fuel economy under normal driving conditions. For all three of the cars I have owned, I have been unable to get even close to the fuel economy that makes. So manufacturers probably inflate those numbers.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
15.

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

Answer choices

  1. Correct78% picked this

    draws a conclusion on the basis of a sample that is

    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.

  2. Sampling Out of Scope14% picked this

    presumes, without providing justification, that driving conditions are the same in

    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.

  3. Inappropriate Appeals2% picked this

    overlooks the possibility that the source of a cited claim may be biased

    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.

  4. Out of Scope4% picked this

    presumes, without providing justification, that car manufacturers knowingly market cars that fail to meet minimum

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

  5. Equivocation1% picked this

    uses the term "fuel economy" in two

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

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