LSAT 143 – Section 3 – Question 18

LSAT 143 - Section 3 - Question 18

June 2015

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

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:23

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
PT143 S3 Q18
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
3%
157
B
6%
157
C
1%
152
D
12%
160
E
79%
165
142
151
160
 +Medium 147.721 +SubsectionMedium

Consumer advocate: Manufacturers of children’s toys often place warnings on their products that overstate the dangers their products pose. Product-warning labels should overstate dangers only if doing so reduces injuries. In fact, however, manufacturers overstate their products’ dangers merely for the purpose of protecting themselves from lawsuits brought by parents of injured children. Therefore, manufacturers of children’s toys should not overstate the dangers their products pose.

Summarize Argument
The author concludes that manufacturers of children’s toys should not overstate the dangers of their toys. This is based on the principle that product-warning labels should overstate dangers only if doing so reduces injuries. But manufacturers of children’s toys overstate their products’ dangers only for the purpose of protecting themselves from lawsuits.

Identify and Describe Flaw
The author assumes that if the purpose of overstating the dangers of children’s toys is to avoid lawsuits, then it cannot have the effect of reducing injuries. This overlooks the possibility that overstating the dangers could reduce injuries, even if the manufacturers’ purpose in overstating is about something else besides reducing injuries.

A
The argument confuses a necessary condition for reducing the number of injuries caused by a product with a sufficient condition.
The argument doesn’t present any necessary condition for reducing injuries. We only get a necessary condition for when product-warning labels should overstate dangers.
B
The argument overlooks the possibility that warnings that do not overstate the dangers that their products pose do not always reduce injuries.
The author concludes that manufacturers should not overstate the dangers. But this conclusion isn’t based on any assumption that not overstating will reduce injuries. So it wouldn’t affect the argument if not overstating dangers doesn’t reduce injuries.
C
The argument relies on a sample that is unlikely to be representative.
The argument isn’t based on a sample. A premise tells us what manufacturers of children’s toys do, and the conclusion concerns what those manufacturers should do.
D
The argument presumes, without providing justification, that if a warning overstates a danger, then the warning will fail to prevent injuries.
The author assumes that if the PURPOSE of overstating a danger isn’t to reduce injuries, then it can’t reduce injuries. But the author does not assume that every warning that overstates a danger won’t prevent injuries.
E
The argument relies on the unjustified assumption that an action has an effect only if it was performed in order to bring about that effect.
The author assumes that an action (overstating dangers) has an effect (reduces injuries) only if it was performed to bring about that effect. This is why the author thinks the purpose of avoiding lawsuits establishes that the manufacturers’ overstating dangers shouldn’t be done.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 143 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply