LSAT 159 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Company spokesperson: Although our products are the most expensive …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Our products are the best available.

REASONING: If the less expensive ones were as good as ours, they’d cost as much or more.

ANALYSIS: This is circular reasoning. It’s a common logical flaw you should know and be able to recognize.

The spokesperson argues their products are the best because they’re most expensive. The argument goes like this:

• Our products cost the most.
• Any cheaper competitor product must be worse. If it was as good as ours, it would cost as much or more.
• Therefore, ours must be the best.

The problem is that the spokesperson is assuming exactly what they’re trying to prove – that price reliably reflects quality. Instead of giving evidence that higher price indicates higher quality, they treat that idea as a given. So the logic becomes circular.

___________

1. CORRECT. This answer refers to the final line. “If a [competing product] were as good as…our product, it would cost….”
    
   The conclusion is that the competing products are not as good. The evidence is “if they were as good” which means “they are not as good.” So, the evidence is the same as the conclusion, meaning the premise is assuming the conclusion is true. This is a circular argument.
    
   You may have heard “circular reasoning is never the correct answer”. Well, it is sometimes, and it is here.
2. The spokesperson never talks about “the best that could be produced” versus “best currently available.” No such distinction matters to the argument.
   Example of flaw: Our cell phone is the best on the market, so no cell phone could ever be better.

3. The stimulus doesn’t make a causal argument. Also, this particular error is remarkably dumb, and almost never will be right. You have to:

   1. Admit that one thing causes a second thing, and directly state this.
   2. Then, get confused, forget what you said, and argue the second thing causes the first thing.

   Example of flaw: Nobody bought our cell phone, causing the company to have huge losses. Clearly, people are avoiding buying our cell phone because they don’t want to be associated with losses, the losses are causing the lack of sales.

4. The argument that their products are the best is not based on an inference that each of their products is best of their kind.
   Example of flaw: Each of our products is expensive, so our company’s stock is expensive.
5. The claims in the argument aren’t contradicting each other. They’re just circular. This answer will almost never be right, truly inconsistent statements sound ridiculous.
   Example of flaw: Our products are the most expensive, but also, our products are not the most expensive.