Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 4 · Question 4

Incorrect. The conclusion is about "this attack" on the product—the one about the Filterator X not removing chemical contaminants. As such, the review not mentioning the taste is out of scope. Taste may be why the consumers are satisfied with the Filterator X, as the Spokesperson states, but the only element of the review that is in scope of the argument is that note about chemical contaminants since that's what the conclusion takes issue with.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Stimulus Summary:
Household Products review - Filterator X doesn't remove chemical contaminants
Rebuttal - Millions of Filterator X owners are happy, so the review is wrong.

Answer Anticipation:
The review makes a factual claim—this filtration system doesn't remove a significant amount of chemical contaminants. That would be tested for with . . . well, we don't know, but science.

The rebuttal from the Spokesperson? It's based on the satisfaction of the customers. That's a subjective assessment—unless those customers have chemistry degrees and can test for chemical contaminants. Any answer that points out the details in the rebuttal don't actually address the content of the review/criticism will undermine this argument.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the satisfaction of the owners doesn't address the criticism about chemical contaminants. Their satisfaction can't show that it does remove chemical contaminants if the owners have no way of measuring that.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever the LSAT raises a subjective assessment, make sure that it's not using it to support a factual conclusion. A jump between the two is a common flaw on the LSAT.

Incorrect. It makes sense that people who have dirty water would buy a filtration system, but that doesn't establish that it works to manage those contaminants!

Incorrect. Whether the consumers are aware of the review is irrelevant to whether that review is correct.

Incorrect. This might just be because they don't work! First, this doesn't establish bias, as consistently negative reviews could reflect a poor product. Second, even if it did, establishing bias on the part of the magazine helps the Spokesperson's argument.