The question stem for 8 reads,

The advertisement's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider something.

So we call this a descriptive weakening or flaw method of reasoning question.

They're actually kind of different, but I don't suppose the distinction is really relevant

because I haven't seen a question make that distinction, their turning point yet.

But anyway, that's a little too abstract and advanced.

But the key here is to realize that we are going to describe where the argument is in error.

So take a look at the last part of this question stem.

It says the argument fails to consider something.

So having failed to consider something is the reason.

So first of all, it has to be descriptively accurate.

The argument must have failed to consider this thing.

So if it considered it, you can't choose it. It's immediately wrong.

But that's just the first step.

So even if it is descriptively accurate in that it failed to consider something,

the fact that it failed to consider it must be the reason why it's vulnerable to criticism.

So that's the second step of the test.

So we'll see some of these answers pass one but not the other.

Great.

We conduct a test using over 100 customers to prove Fabric Soft is the best.

Okay, so you just imagine like 100 people sort of standing here and each one is given a towel,

one wash with Fabric Soft and one wash without it.

Okay, already your skepticism radar should be registering something off the charts.

What do you think is gonna happen?

Like, you know, Seven Stage is not in the business of making Fabric Softener.

But let's say we made a Fabric Softener.

You know, we just like looked at some generic CVS or Duane Reade brand Fabric Softener.

And we're like, just sort of copy the formula.

You know, it's kind of crappy.

But then we wash one cloth with the Seven Stage Fabric Softener.

And then the other towel is just washed in water.

Which one do you think is gonna come out softer?

Obviously, the one washed with any kind of Fabric Softener, right?

You can't compare Fabric Soft with nothing.

You know, what kind of comparison is that?

And then look, 99% of the consumers prefer the Fabric Softener.

Well, of course, of course, 99%.

And one consumer probably just caught on to what they were doing and just out of spite

said that the other one was softer.

But so what?

So you can't conclude this.

You just cannot conclude Fabric Softener is the most effective Fabric Softener available.

Yeah, if it's like the only Fabric Softener available, then sure,

I suppose it would be the most effective Fabric Softener available.

You see, so for a question like this, you know, you identified the conclusion,

identified the premises, and ideally, you should be able to anticipate it.

You know, ideally, you have some, because what this question is doing,

it's a cookie cutter question.

It's a question that's reincarnated from other questions

that you've seen before on their tests.

Now, you know, I'm saying this, if this is the first LSAT you've taken,

obviously, it's not true.

But the point is, you know, you're gonna be taking many, many more LSATs.

And this is a skill you have to get good at.

You have to remember past questions that this one looks like.

And that way you can just, you know, sort of already like,

I've seen this trick performed before, you know, the sleight of hand.

I've seen it before. I can catch it when I see it again.

Right, so what this is doing is, when you're doing a comparative,

you have to make sure you're actually doing a comparative.

Right, so there's actually no support for this prep,

from these premises going to this conclusion.

All right, so now let's just find the right answer choice that talks about this.

Any of the consumer, because it fails to consider whether any of the consumers

Yeah, this argument totally did not consider at all

whether anyone's allergic to anything.

Right, I mean, not as far as we know.

Not as far as we know, and that's all we get to say, right?

We don't get to presume things, assume things about it.

But then it doesn't pass step two.

Whether they're allergic has nothing to do

with why these premises don't support this conclusion.

Right, you can, you know, you can say answer choice A,

the argument fails to consider whether cats like milk more or dogs like milk more.

Yeah, it passes the descriptive test.

It is describing the argument because it failed to consider that.

But that's not, that has nothing to do with whether argument's vulnerable.

See, feeding on your prejudices.

Both of these are just feeding on your prejudices.

You know, you as a consumer, you might care about whether Fabrisoft is,

whether, you know, consumers are allergic to Fabrisoft.

Maybe you're allergic to it.

But it has nothing to do with whether this premise supports this conclusion.

You as an environmentalist might care about the environment.

You know, that's a great thing to do,

but it has nothing to do with this question,

whether these premises support this conclusion.

See, again, just all of this is just feeding off your prejudices.

You are a conscientious consumer.

You care about your budget, and you might care about this stuff.

But again, nothing to do with premise conclusion.

D says, the consumer testifying the benefit of using Fabrisoft worth the expense.

And you're like, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's right.

You know, what if it costs like a million bucks?

And I don't know if it's effective anymore, right?

But see, it just, it doesn't, it doesn't matter.

Because this is not the reason how expensive Fabrisoft is,

is not the reason why the premises don't support the conclusion.

Fabrisoft owners other than Fabrisoft.

And we just don't know.

And in order to make a statement like this, you have to,

if you're going to say it's most effective,

you have to have this consumers evaluate Fabrisoft against other brands.