Logical reasoning PrepTest 126 · Section 1 · Question 3

Incorrect. First, no one contends that direct mail advertising isn't immoral. Second, there's no specific example of anything. The discussion of direct mail advertising is about the practice in general, and the premise is about "anyone else," not a specific example.

Incorrect. While Durth does discuss the consequences of direct mail advertising, he doesn't talk about it becoming more widespread.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Most direct mail is junked without being read, and others wasting that much paper would be unconscionable, so direct mailers are acting annoyingly/immorally.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument reaches a judgment about the practice of direct mail advertising—they're annoying and immoral. When judgments such as this are reached, the argument generally needs to establish a principle that allows such a judgment to be reached. In short, it needs to establish what counts as immoral and annoying.

That is missing from this argument. Instead of establishing a principle for when an action is immoral or annoying, it brings up a judgment in another context—anyone else wasting a similar amount of paper would be acting in an unconscionable manner. That comparison is the key premise that Durth (Vuder?) relies on to reach the similar judgment about direct mailers, so the correct answer should reflect that. Let's look for an answer that says it reaches a judgment based on that judgment being reached in a similar situation.

Answer Explanation:
Durth does discuss one result of direct mail advertising—it wastes a lot of paper. He also discusses that in another context ("anyone else"), that outcome is immoral ("unconscionable"). This answer reflects Durth's use of a comparison to other situations where an equivalent conclusion was reached in order to justify a judgment about a given practice, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Judgments—especially moral ones—generally require a principle establishing how such a judgment could be drawn. That was missing here, so focusing on what was presented instead led us to the correct answer.

Another angle on this question? Comparisons are key on the LSAT, and this question featured a comparison to other situations, which led directly to the correct answer.

Incorrect. That direct mail advertising is annoying is a part of the conclusion, not a premise on which that conclusion is based.

Incorrect. While Durth does mention other forms of advertising that presumably waste less paper, he doesn't specifically mention that they waste less, so this answer doesn't describe his reasoning.