LSAT 159 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q4

LR Question 4 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Toy manufacturer: Our competitors argue that we should withdraw …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The competitor’s argument doesn’t merit serious attention.

REASONING: The alleged injuries haven’t been proven. And even if they were, the competitor’s argument still fails because they don’t follow their own advice.

ANALYSIS: You might be tempted to think that the flaw is related to whether the injuries were actually proven. But that’s not what undermines the reasoning. The manufacturer even says “aren’t proven, but even if they were proven”, so their conclusion doesn’t depend on the truth of the allegations.

The actual flaw is that the manufacturer dismisses the competitor’s argument by attacking their hypocrisy instead of addressing the substance of their claim. The fact that the competitors aren’t following their own advice (not withdrawing their own unsafe toys) doesn’t prove that their reasoning is wrong. So they’re attacking the source of the argument rather than the substance of the argument itself.

This type of flaw is called ad hominem. It’s a classic one and you should know it.

___________

1. There’s no contradiction between the reasons. The manufacturer gives two reasons (lack of proof and competitor’s hypocrisy), but they’re not logically inconsistent or mutually exclusive.
   Example of flaw: Our toy is perfectly safe because it’s made from non-toxic parts. But it also has small parts that kids might swallow.
2. This is describing a bias. “You only say that because it benefits you”. But the manufacturer isn’t accusing the competitor of bias, they’re accusing them of hypocrisy.
   Example of flaw: Our competitor says we should withdraw our toy because it’s dangerous. But they’re only saying that to reduce competition.
3. This choice would only fit if the manufacturer had concluded that the toy is safe because the injuries haven’t been proven. But that’s not what happens here. The manufacturer says even if the injuries were proven, the competitor’s argument would still be wrong.
   Example of flaw: There’s no conclusive proof that our toy causes injuries, so it’s definitely safe.
4. CORRECT. This is exactly what the manufacturer is doing. They’re rejecting the competitor’s argument not because it’s invalid or false, but because the competitors themselves don’t follow their own advice.
5. There’s no discussion of necessary or sufficient conditions. The reasoning isn’t conditional. It’s about credibility and consistency.
   Example of flaw: No safe toys have sharp edges. Our toy has no sharp edges, so it’s safe.