Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 3 · Question 20

Incorrect. It takes that into account by averaging the savings—some will save a lot, some a little, and most somewhere in between.

Incorrect. Since the conclusion is about people switching to Popelka, who would all be new policyholders, how this group compares to those who have held policies for a while is out of scope.

Incorrect. If Popelka saves these customers money, then the conclusion is justified even if they could save even more by switching to a third company. The conclusion isn't that people would save the most money by switching to Popelka, just that they would save hundreds of dollars from what they're currently spending.

Incorrect. This is very close to being a correct answer, and it highlights a type of sampling flaw we didn't discuss in our Anticipation—self-reported data can be incorrect. Here, if the data reported by the individuals surveyed is wrong, then that could call the conclusion into question. However, the argument assumes that people didn't overestimated their savings. If they underestimated their savings, then that means they saved even more than they reported, and thus the conclusion would be strengthened.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Ad: A representative sample of new Popelka Insurance holders saved an average of $250 in savings by switching, so most people could save money by switching to Popelka.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here relies crucially on a recent survey, so we should start by considering the most common flaws associated with surveys (and polls, and studies): sampling flaw, and correlation/causation flaw.

For the sampling flaw, the stimulus notes that the sample is representative of those who are new Popelka policyholders. Throwing that "representative" in there can make it seem as if there's no sampling flaw here, but be careful! The conclusion is about most people with auto insurance, but this sample is representative of those who switched to Popelka! It could be the case that those who switch are more likely to save money by going with Popelka, while others will find cheaper policies with other companies. Since there's a shift in the group represented by the sample and the group in the conclusion, there's a sampling flaw we can look for in the answer choices.

For the correlation/causation flaw, we could shoehorn the flaw into that framework, but it would describe the same issue as the sampling flaw, and since that's a more direct statement of the flaw, we should expect that to be reflected in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the sampling flaw. While the sample may be representative of those who have switched to Popelka, that doesn't mean it's representative of all people in the market for auto insurance. In failing to address if the group in the survey is representative of this group, the argument is flawed.

Key Takeaway:
Make sure that the sample in a survey is representative of the group in the conclusion. And when there's a survey, study, or poll, be sure to look for a sampling flaw, and a correlation/causation flaw. Finally, always be wary of self-reported data in a survey—people could be lying or wrong!