LSAT 103 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q10

LR Question 10 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Tires may be either underinflated, overinflated, or…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Over or under-inflation of tires won’t hurt their treads.

REASONING: No one has shown that over or under-inflation does harm tire treads.

ANALYSIS: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The fact that we lack proof something is bad doesn’t prove that it’s safe.

Maybe over-inflating tires is actually extremely dangerous. We don’t have any evidence either way.

___________

1. This isn’t a circular argument. The premise (no one has shown there is a problem) is different from the conclusion (there is no problem).
2. The argument never said that we could never prove whether it’s safe to improperly inflate tires.
3. The argument argued that improper inflation doesn’t harm tires.
4. CORRECT. Absence of proof can’t prove anything. The author should have said: “Therefore, I have no idea whether improper inflation hurts tires, or doesn’t hurt them.”
5. Everyone can figure out what those terms mean: adding not enough air, and adding too much air.

Recap: The question begins with “Tires may be either underinflated, overinflated, or”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.