Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S2 · Q17 The average tax refund received

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

The average tax refund received by taxpayers who use tax preparation services is about 50 percent higher than the average refund received by those who do not.

Conclusion (so)

If you want a large refund, you should use a tax preparation service.

Evidence

The average tax refund received by taxpayers who use tax preparation services is about 50 percent higher than the average refund received by those who do not.

Evaluate

This is the famous Causal flaw, where an author looks at a correlation and assumes a certain causal explanation.

The hallmarks of an Explain Curious Fact argument are comparative evidence and a causal conclusion.

The evidence talks about refunds being 50% higher for those how used tax prep. So tax prep is correlated with higher refunds: tax prep || higher refunds

The conclusion is acting like the tax prep service is the reason for the higher refunds, by implying that using a tax prep service is a way to get a large refund.

But we don't know that this correlation exists because tax prep leads to higher refunds.

We want to always consider the two Alternate Explanations we have memorized for Correlations: 1. reverse causality (maybe the large refund came first, and that refund is how the people can afford to pay a tax prep service)

2. third factor (maybe the sort of person who uses a tax prep service is just more likely to have a tax situation that involves getting refunded by the government)

Goal

Since we're just trying to match the structure of this argument / find an argument with a similar flaw, we can think ...

I want my premise to present a Correlation between two things. I want the conclusion to imply (or say outright) that one of those things leads to the other.

17.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning exhibited by the argument above?

  1. Correct

    People who invest heavily in

    Why this is right

    This looks great! Our premise is a correlation, invest heavily in stock market || higher incomes And then our conclusion acts like "investing heavily LEADS to higher incomes". It even mirrors the prescriptive style of the original conclusion. When we say, "If you want X, you should do Y", we are prescribing a recommendation but also implying the causal idea that Y leads to X. And just like the original argument it would be vulnerable to alternate explanations like Reverse Causality (maybe the high income comes first, and that's why they can afford to invest heavily in the stock market) and Third Factor (maybe there's some trait, like being an investment banker, that is connected to both investing heavily and to making lots of money, via salary).

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

    89% picked this

  2. Establishing an in-house print shop

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument's evidence uses the phrase "usually enables," which describes a causal relationship, not a mere correlation. The original argument's evidence described a statistical correlation between two groups without establishing any causal mechanism. When evidence already states that one thing "enables" another, recommending that action is not a correlation-to-causation error. It's is a reasonable inference from the stated causal relationship.

    3% picked this

  3. Quitting smoking will lower your

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument has two structural problems that distinguish it from the original. First, the evidence uses "will lower" and "will also decrease," which assert direct causal relationships rather than mere correlations. The original argument's evidence only described a statistical difference between groups. Second, the conclusion draws a causal link between two effects (lowering insurance premiums and reducing cancer risk), which is an entirely different reasoning error from the original. The original concluded that one variable causes another; this argument concludes that two effects of the same cause are causally linked to each other.

    3% picked this

  4. People with larger-than-average estates to

    Bad Evidence Match

    You could technically call the evidence a correlation, have large estate || believe having own lawyer is helpful But if the conclusion were then going to copy the original and act like one thing leads to the other, we'd either need to see the conclusion say, "So if you want a large estate, you should start believing that it's helpful have your own lawyer" or "So if you want to find it helpful to have your own lawyer, you should get a larger-than-average estate". The actual conclusion doesn't sound like either of these. And it's not even saying that one thing leads to another. It's just saying, "people who are in the position of having a larger-than-average estate to manage would benefit from having their own lawyer".

    4% picked this

  5. In deciding who they will

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument's evidence describes a deliberate action by telemarketers: they target people who have purchased from telemarketers before. This is a description of a behavioral strategy, not a statistical correlation between two traits. The conclusion is saying that "not buying stuff from telemarketers will lead to them not calling you", so the correct evidence to match this would have sounded like, "People who don't receive calls from telemarketers are less likely to make purchases from telemarketers than are those who do receive calls."

    2% 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