LSAT 108 – Section 3 – Question 19

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 19

February 2000

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:19

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT108 S3 Q19	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw	A 5% 165 B 8% 161 C 1% 149 D 83% 167 E 3% 158	138 149 160	+Medium	147.273 +SubsectionMedium

Faden: Most of our exercise machines are still in use after one year. A recent survey of our customers shows this.

Greenwall: But many of those customers could easily be lying because they are too embarrassed to admit that they don’t exercise anymore.

Faden: You have no way of showing that customers were lying. Your objection is absurd.

Summarize Argument

Faden concludes that Greenwall’s objection, that many of Faden’s customers could be lying about still using their year-old exercise machines, is absurd because Greenwall doesn’t have a way to prove the objection.

Identify and Describe Flaw

Faden asserts that since a survey shows most of his customers claim to still use their year-old exercise equipment, most of their machines are still in use after a year. Greenwall points out that many of those customers could be lying, and Faden argues that Greenwall’s objection is absurd because Greenwall has no way to prove the objection.
A flaw in Faden’s reasoning is that Greenwall’s objection isn’t necessarily absurd just because Greenwall can’t prove the objection. An objection can lack evidence and still have merit.

Greenwall takes for granted that many customers have stopped using the equipment but are too embarrassed to admit it.

Greenwall doesn’t argue or imply that the customers have stopped using the equipment. He just points out that many of the customers could be lying about using the equipment.

Greenwall presumes, without giving justification, that most people are dishonest about their personal habits.

Greenwall doesn’t make a claim about most people’s personal habits. His statement only addresses the possibility that customers could be lying about using their equipment.

Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the more conclusive the evidence is for a claim, the less believable the claim becomes.

Faden doesn’t make the case that people are less likely to believe a claim as stronger evidence is presented to support that claim.

Faden presumes, without providing justification, that the evidence for a claim has not been undermined unless that evidence has been proven false.

This is a flaw in Faden’s reasoning. Faden presumes that his argument hasn’t been undermined because Greenwall hasn’t definitively disproved that argument. However, an objection to an argument can hold weight even if that objection doesn’t totally disprove the argument.

Greenwall ignores the possibility that some people stopped using the equipment but were not embarrassed about it.

Greenwall isn’t concerned with the possibility that some people stopped using their equipment but aren’t embarrassed about it. Greenwall only makes the case that some people may be lying about still using their equipment because they’re embarrassed to admit they stopped.

LSAT 108 – Section 3 – Question 19

LSAT 108 - Section 3 - Question 19

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 108 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Leave a Reply Cancel