Logical Reasoning

PT154 · S2 · Q10 Wei: A respected automobile

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

Wei: A respected automobile expert claims that most cars will develop transmission problems unless their transmissions are serviced at least once every three years.

Conclusion (but - rebuttal)

This claim is false.

rephrase: Even if you don't get the transmission serviced at least one every three years, most cars won't develop transmission problems.

Evidence

I've owned both of my cars for over 12 years, never had the transmission services, and never developed a transmission problem.

Evaluate

This argument would be similar to arguing,

We would respond,

We can't fight a generalization with a handful of data points. When we say "most NBA players are taller than average", someone can't argue with us and say, "Nuh-uh ... average height is 6' 1" and several point guards in the NBA are only 6 feet or shorterSince MY cars didn't have transmission problems, even though I never serviced the transmission, the same would be true for MOST cars."

Goal

Parallel Flaw loves to test these Famous Flaws (Nec vs. Suff / Part vs. Whole / Sampling / Ad Hominem). Since this argument has a Sampling issue (the author is fighting a genera claim based on a just a couple of nonconfirming data points), let's look for an argument relying on a sample that is too small.

The sample might be from personal experience, as was the case here, but using personal experience isn't why this is flawed. It's just because the set of data points yielded by personal experience is so shallow.

Similarly, this argument had a rebuttal structure, so the correct answer might, but the Flaw was assuming that , so to replicate the flaw we wouldn't necessarily need a rebuttal structure.

10.

The pattern of flawed reasoning in Wei's argument is most similar to the pattern of flawed reasoning exhibited by which one of the following?

  1. Correct

    My veterinarian told me that

    Why this is right

    This has the same structure and flaw as the original. The author is rebutting a general claim, "most cats who don't have yearly cleanings will have gum problems", by pointing to one lone data point from personal experience. "Nuh-uhhhh ... my cat didn't have yearly cleanings, and she doesn't have gum problems."

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

    94% picked this

  2. Car dealers claim that customers

    Different Flaw

    This is committing the Ad Hominem flaw, in which an author dismisses someone else's view because the source of that view has a biased motive or has conflicting past behavior. In the original argument, the author is disputing a general claim by saying that her personal experience doesn't line up with that claim. In this answer, the author is disputing a general claim by saying that the source of the claim has a biased interest in that claim being true.

    0% picked this

  3. A high-ranking traffic safety official

    Bad Evidence Match / Additional Flaw

    Overall, this answer is promising. An author is rebutting an expert's claim on the basis of the shallow sample of their own personal experience. However, this argument has an additional flaw. Its putative counterexample isn't really a counterexample. Suppose we're considering the offensive claim, "blond people are usually not very smart". A counterexample would be saying, "Nuh-uhh. Stacey is a blond person and she is very smart." What this answer choice did was attempt to provide a counterexample by saying, "Nuh-uhh. Stacey has black hair, and she is not very smart." When we say "Most A's are B" or "All A's are B", then the feel of a counterexample is something that is "A, but not B". This answer is providing something that is "B, but not A". For this argument to match the original, the premises should be saying, "This is not true. After all, I drive over the speed limit, but I have not had accidents."

    5% picked this

  4. Boot manufacturers claim that a

    Bad Evidence Match

    Similar to (C), this has a good overall feel because the author is rebutting someone's claim on the basis of the shallow sample of their own personal experience. But just like (C), the personal experience isn't a clear counterexample of the general statement. The general statement was "most good boots last more than 5 years". A correct-sounding counterexample would be, "I had this pair of good boots, but it lasted less than 5 years". However, in this argument, the author never establishes that we're talking about a pair of good boots, so it's not clear whether it's a counterexample. (The writers seemed to even throw us the idea of "These boots I got from the Discount Store" to suggest that they're probably not high quality boots).

    1% picked this

  5. A study of local rainfall

    Bad Conclusion / Evidence Match

    This one is miles away. There's no rebuttal to a general claim. There's no personal experience being used as the evidence.

    0% 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