LSAT 136 – Section 4 – Question 04

LSAT 136 - Section 4 - Question 04

June 2012

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 0:51

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
PT136 S4 Q04
+LR
Weaken +Weak
Link Assumption +LinkA
Fact v. Belief v. Knowledge +FvBvK
A
1%
152
B
97%
164
C
1%
156
D
1%
153
E
0%
153
121
130
139
 +Easiest 146.121 +SubsectionMedium

Company spokesperson: Household Products magazine claims that our Filterator X water filter does not remove chemical contaminants in significant amounts. This attack on the quality of our product is undermined by the experience of the millions of Filterator X owners who are satisfied with the product’s performance.

Summarize Argument

The company spokesperson concludes that the attack by Household Products magazine that Filterator X water filters do not remove significant amounts of chemical contaminants is inaccurate. He supports this by appealing to the experience of millions of people who own FIlterator X filters and are satisfied with their performance.

Notable Assumptions

The company spokesperson assumes that the fact that millions of customers are satisfied with their Filterator X filters means that the filters must be removing significant amounts of chemical contaminants from the water. This means that he also assumes that customers are able to tell whether their filters are removing chemical contaminants.

A
Household Products did not evaluate whether the Filterator X water filter significantly improved the taste of drinking water.

This doesn’t weaken the argument because it doesn’t deal with the question of whether or not the filters actually remove chemical contaminants from water. Customers may be satisfied because of improved taste, but this doesn’t tell us anything about the chemical contaminants.

B
Most Filterator X owners have no way to determine how effectively the product removes chemical contaminants from water.

This weakens the argument by showing that the company spokesperson’s assumption is false. Just because customers are satisfied doesn’t mean that the filters are removing chemical contaminants.

C
People whose household water contains chemical contaminants are more likely than other people to buy a Filterator X water filter.

The fact that Filterator X customers have very contaminated water doesn’t change the attack that the filters aren’t effectively removing those chemical contaminants. So this doesn’t weaken the spokesperson’s conclusion that the attack is unfounded.

D
Very few people who own a Filterator X read Household Products on a consistent basis.

Whether or not Filterator X customers read Household Products is irrelevant to the argument and doesn’t weaken the spokesperson’s conclusion that the magazine’s attack on the filters is false.

E
Household Products’ evaluations of Filterator X water filters have been consistently negative.

This doesn’t weaken the argument because it doesn’t address the assumption that customer satisfaction accurately reflects the filters’ effectiveness.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 136 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Reading Comprehension

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply