LSAT 151 – Section 4 – Question 15

LSAT 151 - Section 4 - Question 15

September 2018

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

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:57

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
PT151 S4 Q15
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Sampling +Smpl
A
75%
163
B
20%
159
C
2%
154
D
2%
153
E
1%
154
132
146
161
 +Medium 145.196 +SubsectionEasier

Columnist: Many car manufacturers trumpet their cars’ fuel economy under normal driving conditions. For all three of the cars I have owned, I have been unable to get even close to the fuel economy that manufacturers advertise for cars of those makes. So manufacturers probably inflate those numbers.

Summarize Argument
The columnist concludes that car manufacturers likely inflate fuel efficiency numbers. He supports this by saying that, despite manufacturers highlighting their cars' fuel economy under normal driving conditions, he has never gotten close to the advertised fuel economy of any of the three cars that he's owned.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of using too small of a sample. The columnist draws a conclusion about the fuel economy claims of all manufacturers based on his experience with only three cars. But there are dozens of car manufacturers and thousands of car models on the market. Driving three cars isn’t a reliable way to test the fuel economy of every kind of car. Maybe most manufacturers’ claims are accurate and the columnist just purchased three bad cars.

The columnist also assumes that his driving conditions are “normal.”

A
draws a conclusion on the basis of a sample that is too small
The columnist concludes that all manufacturers inflate fuel economy based on his experience with three cars. But with thousands of car models available, three cars is far too small a sample. Maybe most manufacturers’ claims are accurate and the columnist just got three bad cars.
B
presumes, without providing justification, that driving conditions are the same in every geographical region
The columnist never assumes that all driving conditions are the same everywhere— that would be an extreme assumption! He does assume that he drove his three cars in "normal driving conditions," but "normal" doesn't mean the same in every region.
C
overlooks the possibility that the source of a cited claim may be biased and hence unreliable
The columnist doesn’t overlook this. If anything, he actually assumes that the source of fuel economy claims— the manufacturers— is unreliable. But he does so based on a sample that is too small.
D
presumes, without providing justification, that car manufacturers knowingly market cars that fail to meet minimum fuel efficiency standards
The columnist never assumes that car manufacturers market cars that don’t meet minimum fuel efficiency standards. He just says that his three cars didn’t meet their advertised fuel economy; they might still have met the minimum requirements.
E
uses the term “fuel economy” in two different senses
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of equivocation, where the author uses the same term in different ways throughout the argument. The columnist doesn't make this mistake; he uses the term “fuel economy” clearly and consistently throughout his argument.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 151 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply