Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 3 · Question 1

Incorrect. First, there is no recommendation in the stimulus (one might be implied, but it's not stated). Second, the conclusion is about economic factors ("costs more"), so other factors are out of scope.

Incorrect. The cost of ATM transactions are relevant to overall costs, they're just not completely determinative of them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
GreenBank Ad: Our ATM fees are lower than TekBank's, so it's cheaper to bank with us than TekBank.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion is about the overall cost of banking compared between two banks, but it only discusses a single cost (ATM fees). That's drawing a conclusion about the whole cost based on only a partial comparison of costs, so this answer is committing a part-to-whole flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the part-to-whole flaw from the stimulus. While ATM costs may be lower at a bank, other costs may more than make up the difference in that cost.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument on the LSAT discusses overall costs, profits, revenue, or any financial measure, there's a good chance that it's doing so without considering all of the relevant numbers—and it's usually jumping from one factor to the overall number. This is a classic part-to-whole flaw, so be on the lookout for it in any argument dealing with finances.

Incorrect. This answer describes a whole-to-part flaw, where a component is concluded to have the property of the whole. Since this argument concludes about overall costs, we can rule this answer out.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't conclude a claim is false (there's no statement from TekBank that they're cheaper being rebutted), and the Ad provides evidence of cost savings, so this answer is wrong in both parts.