QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Only funny ads work well.
REASONING: Funny ads hold people’s attention. Ads only work if they hold your attention.
ANALYSIS: Funny ads are sufficient to hold your attention. But other ads could also hold your attention – the stimulus didn’t show that funniness is necessary.
You can diagram this if you’d like. There are two conditional statements that don’t link up:
Funny ➞ holds attention
Effective ➞ holds attention
- CORRECT. Maybe emotional ads can also hold people’s attention. Then funny ads wouldn’t be the only kind that could be effective.
- The argument doesn’t do this. The second sentence says that funny ads attract and hold your attention.
- I found this very tempting. The argument implies that funny ads are effective, when all we know is that funny ads meet a necessary condition for effectiveness.So why isn’t this right? It’s because the main point of the conclusion is that funny ads are the only effective ads i.e. that no other ads can be effective. So A is the best answer. Though there is a case to be made that this answer is also right and that the question is flawed.
- The stimulus uses “effective” the same way each time. To pick this type of answer, you have to say what the two different definitions of effective are.
- The stimulus didn’t even talk about the purpose of an advertisement. An answer can’t be the flaw if it didn’t happen.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly