QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Most people could save hundreds of dollars by switching to Popeka.
REASONING: People who have switched to Popeka saved hundreds of dollars on average.
ANALYSIS: The LSAT expects you to understand the scientific method. One key to science is that samples should be random.
The sample here is not random. The people who saved hundreds of dollars chose to switch to Popeka. Maybe they switched because they knew they would saved hundreds. Maybe the people who haven’t switched to Popeka would not save hundreds, and that’s why they don’t switch.
To put it another way, imagine I run a program called “Auto insurance for Bob”. Anyone named Bob can save $1,000 with my program. So the average savings is $1,000, because only Bobs enroll in my program. But this Bob-related evidence doesn’t prove that Jim will save money if he switches.
- ‘Some’ is a useless word. Drill this into your head. ‘Some’ can refer to 1-2 people. Who cares if 1-2 people didn’t save money. Thousands of others might have saved money!
- The first test of whether an answer is the flaw is: did this even happen? This answers says “if you’re new, you pay as much as older customers”. The argument didn’t say or assume that! So this can’t be the flaw.
- Who cares? This isn’t a flaw. The conclusion is “Popeka will save you money”. The argument didn’t claim that “Popeka will save you more money than any other company will”.
- If policyholders underreported their savings, then the argument is stronger. The actual savings would be higher, which supports the conclusion. This is not a flaw!
- CORRECT. This means “People switched to Popeka because they could save money”. Maybe others don’t switch because they know they can’t save money. See the explanation above.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions