Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 3 · Question 18

Incorrect. This answer could be correct if the argument committed a conditional logic flaw, but it doesn't—it reaches a conclusion that the conditional premise can justify, under the right conditions.

Incorrect. The relationship in the stimulus is between these labels and reducing injuries, so this answer reflects the illegal negation of that and thus doesn't reflect the flaw in the argument.

Incorrect. The premise and conclusion are both about manufacturers of children's toys, so there's no sampling flaw.

Incorrect. Considering that a key premise of the argument is that these dangers should be overstated only if they reduce injuries, the Advocate seems to be suggesting that there are cases where this is true—just not, according to him, in the case of children's toys.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
not Reduce injuries → not Overstate dangers on warning label
Children's toy manufacturers overstate dangers to avoid liability
Therefore, these manufacturers shouldn't overstate the dangers on the warning label

Answer Anticipation:
This argument establishes a conditional principle, which we diagrammed in the summary to match with the conclusion. If you had diagrammed it straight from the page, then you'd end up with the contrapositive of what we have, and you should have then taken the contrapositive to get it to line up with the conclusion.

Interestingly, even though this Errors in Reasoning question does feature a conditional premise, the conclusion is one that could be justified by it. Normally, the conclusion would rely on an illegal reversal or negation. But that's not the case here—we don't have one of those conditional logic flaws.

When a flawed argument relies on a conditional premise but it doesn't reverse or negate it, the next most likely flaw is a term shift in satisfying the sufficient condition. Here, the argument states that manufacturers overstate the dangers of their kid's toys in order to prevent lawsuits. The sufficient condition to reach the argument's conclusion, however, is that the overstated dangers must not reduce injuries. While the manufacturers aren't printing these labels to reduce injuries, they very well might by making parents overly cautious, resulting in fewer injuries.

This shift is a common one on the LSAT—motive and outcome aren't directly related, and there could be an unintended outcome. Since this argument doesn't establish that injuries aren't reduced, just that reducing injuries isn't a motive of the manufacturers, it shifts between these concepts and is flawed as a result. The correct answer will likely highlight that the argument assumes that the motives behind an action don't determine its outcomes or effects.

Answer Explanation:
The argument uses the manufacturer's motive surrounding avoiding lawsuits to draw a conclusion about whether their actions prevent injuries. It's possible that the outcome of the action could have unintended benefits. This answer points out that the argument is assuming that can't happen, which is the flaw in the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
In an Errors in Reasoning question, a reliance on conditional logic usually means a conditional logic flaw—an illegal reversal or negation. However, usually isn't always. When the argument doesn't commit one of these errors in reasoning, it usually fails to establish that the sufficient condition is met, instead establishing something that is close or related to the sufficient condition. Look for that shift, and you should find the flaw.