LSAT 150 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q16

LR Question 16 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Automobile executive: Our critics say that the communications…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The critics are wrong.

REASONING: The critics say that our devices are dangerous. But our devices are safer than other devices, and drivers will use communication devices either way.

ANALYSIS: This is kind of a “lesser of two evils” argument. But the executive is avoiding the point. The critics are saying the devices are dangerously distracting, and the executive says “nuh-uh! Other devices are worse!”

Imagine you’re at a restaurant, and your food is burned. You inform your waiter, and he says “well, actually your food is perfectly fine. That guy over there, now HIS food is burned. Yours is great!”

It doesn’t fly. It’s an attempt to distract from the real issue: the devices are dangerously distracting. The critics didn’t say they weren’t safer; the critics are saying they aren’t safe at all.

___________

1. That’s not what’s happening here. It’s not that the executive’s principle is generally applicable – it’s flawed from the start, not just here.
2. CORRECT. The executive doesn’t address the real problem. Even if their devices are safer, that’s not the same as safe.
3. This is a different flaw.
4. The executive does the opposite – he specifically says his company’s devices are safer.
5. The premises here don’t assume the conclusion.

Recap: The question begins with “Automobile executive: Our critics say that the communications”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.