LSAT 119 | Section 4 | Logical Reasoning: Q20

LR Question 20 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Evidence suggests that we can manufacture a car with twice…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning

CONCLUSION: We can do both.

REASONING: We could do one or the other.

ANALYSIS: “I could fly to New York tomorrow. Or I could fly to Tokyo. Therefore, I must be able to do both at once!” Not a good argument (though I might be able to do both, and be jet lagged).

Maybe we can increase fuel efficiency and safety, but we would need more information. There’s reason to believe that we can’t: fuel efficiency can come from lighter materials, which decrease safety when too many are used.

___________

1. The conclusion should be about whether both things can be done, not some other quality (“well-engineered”).
2. The “because” creates a major difference. Further, there’s no reason to think someone couldn’t simultaneously go outside without a hat and have a cold. The stimulus was mildly implausible.
3. I believe them. Time to wear a hat.
4. CORRECT. Yes. The fact that we can do either does not mean that we can do both. Especially since we know it is often difficult to please both critics and the public.
5. This argument actually has “it’s possible” as a premise, which is fine. It does seem possible to build such a machine. What is less certain is whether anyone would want one.

Recap: The question begins with “Evidence suggests that we can manufacture a car with twice”. It is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flawed Parallel questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.