LSAT 124 - Section 3 - Question 01

We’ve got a strengthening question which we can tell from the question stem: Which one of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

We start out with a bit of context that introduces us to two types of warranties: standard manufacturer’s warranties and extended warranties (those warranties that extend coverage past the end of a manufacturer’s warranty). We then get a shift word (“however”) that moves us from context into our argument. The argument begins with its conclusion: consumers are better off not buying the extended warranties. That’s followed by our one and only premise: most problems with the covered items occur within the time period covered by the standard manufacturer’s warranty. The implication here is that consumers are less likely to run into issues with their devices after the period that is covered by the standard warranty. Therefore, they should forego the additional expense of an extended warranty. This stimulus is a cost-benefit analysis. We are comparing two options (the warranties) and deciding between them based on the pros (benefits) and cons (costs) associated with each one.

The argument is premised upon a quantitative comparison; that is, our premise is comparing the number of problems that occur during the standard warranty with the number of problems that might occur during the extended warranty. Oftentimes an argument premised upon a quantitative comparison will omit a qualitative comparison thus leaving a fairly large gap in the argument. This is particularly true in questions that involve a cost-benefit analysis like we have here. In cases like these, ask yourself how would a qualitative comparison (in this case something based on the quality of the problems instead of the number of problems) potentially impact the argument. For instance, if you were choosing between two airlines and both tickets cost the same, but Airline A had more delays than Airline B, it probably seems like a no-brainer to choose Airline B. But what if Airline A’s delays lasted 5-10 minutes on average whereas Airline B’s delays clocked it in at around 5 hours. Might this shift your thinking? It would shift mine! This is an example of relevant information that a qualitative comparison can bring to a cost benefit analysis.

In this case, we know that there are more issues during the standard warranty period, but what types of issues are they? What if most issues that occur during the standard warranty period are relatively minor and inconsequential–things that you might not even consider getting repaired if your electronic device wasn’t under warranty. Whereas, issues that arise during the extended period are often major issues that prevent you from using your device and would cost you enormous amounts of money if the device were not under warranty. Now we have a reason why that quantitative comparison might not be the only thing you want to consider. Because this is a strengthening question, we should be on the lookout for an answer choice that might tell us something about the quality of the incidents that occur during the two warranty periods. With this all in mind, let’s move to the answer choices:

Correct Answer Choice (A) Perfect! This answer fills in a potential weakness that we identified in our analysis of the stimulus. It tells us that the problems that occur during extended warranties are on par with those that occur during the extended warranty period. This strengthens the conclusion that consumers ought to forego the extended warranty.

Answer Choice (B) This answer choice does nothing to strengthen our argument. If anything it weakens our argument by giving us a reason why we might want to purchase an extended warranty: they aren’t that expensive.

Answer Choice (C) This AC is consistent with our argument. Our conclusion is that consumers would be generally better off without an extended warranty. This gives us a reason why a segment of the population does buy extended warranties—they have extenuating circumstances that increase the likelihood that their devices will break. This neither strengthens or weakens our argument which is directed towards the average consumer.

Answer Choice (D) This answer choice is playing on the assumption that an extended warranty would be an unnecessary expense because some extended warranties include some time that would already be covered by standard warranties. This doesn’t really do anything to our argument and is ultimately irrelevant.

Answer Choice (E) This is telling us why stores sell extended warranties but we are only concerned with whether or not consumers should buy them. Just because they may be a lucrative service for stores to offer doesn’t make them more or less useful to consumers.