QUESTION TEXT: Advertisement: Auto accidents are the most common…
QUESTION TYPE: Weaken
CONCLUSION: If you fall or bump your head, you should take the whiplash treatment course.
REASONING: It’s possible for falls or bumps on the head to cause whiplash.
ANALYSIS: In real life, something can sometimes be a cause, without always being a cause. Many people forget this on the LSAT. If they see something can be a cause, they assume it always is. This is because they’ve learned conditional reasoning and assume that every cause is a sufficient cause.
The LSAC noticed this trend, and so they’ve started making questions that test your ability to spot that something can occasionally be a cause without always being a cause.
In this case, the argument is flawed because the advertisement hasn’t shown that every fall or bump leads to whiplash. If many falls and bumps don’t lead to whiplash then there’s no reason to take the whiplash course after every fall.
___________
- This is tempting, but notice that the conclusion doesn’t say you should take the whiplash course when you’re shoved from behind. Shoves from behind were just mentioned for emphasis, but they’re not structurally part of the argument.
- This mixes together two terms from the stimulus. It’s irrelevant. The conclusion was that you should always go to the whiplash course after a fall. It shouldn’t matter if the fall was due to a car crash or just due to clumsiness while walking.
- This isn’t relevant. The conclusion is about what to do if you fall, or if you bump your head. The fact that whiplash also has other causes doesn’t tell us anything about falls.
- CORRECT. The argument said falling can cause whiplash. This answer points out that while this is true, falling rarely causes whiplash. It doesn’t make sense to take a whiplash treatment course after falls that don’t cause whiplash.
- This strengthens the argument. No matter the cause of your whiplash, the whiplash course should be relevant.
Leave a Reply