Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 2 · Question 17

Incorrect. The argument doesn't require that NA cars become more fuel efficient and reliable than Japanese cars, or that Japanese cars will continue to improve on these fronts and thus necessitate improvements on the NA front.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon - NA demand for Japanese cars is up; Japanese demand for NA cars is stagnant
Old explanation - Japanese cars had better fuel efficiency and reliability
Change - NA cars are now equal
New explanation - In Japan, drivers drive on the left side of the road
Prediction - An obstacle to Japanese demand for NA cars will go away if more NA cars are made with the steering wheel on the other side

Answer Anticipation:
This argument brings in two common patterns. First, it deals with a phenomenon and its explanation, showing how one explanation is outdated and arguing for a new one. It then makes a prediction based on that explanation.

Let's start by analyzing the prediction. In general, when an argument makes a prediction, one of two flaws is present. The argument either assumes that the future won't change in a relevant way that makes a prediction based on present facts outdated, or it assumes a causal relationship that leads to the predicted outcome that isn't established.

Here, the argument talks about removing an obstacle to NA cars being in demand in Japan, so it's not really making an assumption about no future changes happening—it's more about removing a current obstacle.

However, in considering the other pattern present here, we can see overlap between the assumed causality in both patterns. When an argument is bringing up an explanation for a phenomenon, it's necessarily dealing with the cause of that phenomenon. Since both patterns overlap in suggesting a causal flaw, it's likely going to be the assumption of the argument.

Here, the argument puts forward the explanation that drivers drive on the left side of the road as a reason for there not being more demand for NA cars. From this, it proposes that the obstacle will be removed by moving the steering wheel on the other side of the car.

That makes two causal assumptions. First, it assumes that this difference in the side of the road being driven on is the cause of the lack of demand for NA cars in demand. Second, it assumes that moving the steering wheel will reduce this obstacle. For the former, it's possible that, while true, the different side of the road has nothing to do with the lack of demand—there could be another explanation. For the latter, it's possible that the side of the steering wheel is the same in both countries, and thus switching it wouldn't address the real cause.

Let's find an answer that brings up either assumption.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up the second assumption. The Columnist assumes that since drivers in Japan drive on the other side of the road, that they prefer cars with steering wheels on the other side of the car. That's not necessarily true, nor is it established in the stimulus. If they don't prefer right-side steering wheels, then the argument falls apart, so this answer represents a necessary premise.

Key Takeaway:
When there are multiple common patterns in an LSAT argument, the overlapping concepts in them will generally lead to the correct answer. Most frequently, this will highlight a Correlation/Causation flaw, as they're inherent to many of the common patterns on the exame (e.g., phenomenon/explanation; goal/approach; problem/solution—all of these have causal elements to them).

Incorrect. While this answer certainly suggests that NA cars would sell more in Japan if they had right-side steering wheels since they couldn't be sold otherwise, it's only one possible reason for that to be true and thus isn't necessary for the argument to hold. When an answer establishes a very specific possibility that isn't mentioned at all in the stimulus, it's almost certainly out of scope. (Note that ruling out an unmentioned possibility is much more likely to be correct.)

Incorrect. The argument doesn't assume that NA car sales in Japan would increase dramatically if they made this change, just that one obstacle to increasing sales would go away. As such, it doesn't require assuming that "most" would choose the NA model.

Incorrect. First, the argument fails to establish the needs of Japanese buyers—rather, it assumes them. Second, the argument doesn't require this to be the "only" way to address the trade imbalance—just something that would remove one obstacle.