Logical reasoning PrepTest 155 · Section 1 · Question 4

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Argument Exchange (Point at Issue)

Stimulus Summary:
An executive from Zahler Motors accuses their competitor, Graham Motors, of misleading people with a commercial that claims Zahler minivans don't have a foldable third-row seat. The newest models of Zahler minivans do have a foldable third-row seat.

Graham Motors counters by pointing out that Zahler's model from last year did not have a foldable third-row seat, and that model is still sold at Zahler dealerships.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts for both speakers? If argument for one or both speakers, identify the conclusion and premises
2. Anticipate the issue that speakers disagree over. Helps to focus on topics both speakers discuss
3. Use anticipation to select the answer choice that:
   1. One speaker agrees with, and
   2. One speaker disagrees with

Answer Anticipation:
Point at Issue questions ask us to find an answer choice one speaker agrees with and the other disagrees with. In this case, the prompt tells us we're looking specifically for a rule the Graham executive accepts and the guy from Zahler doesn't.

It seems like these two executives both accept the same facts about Zahler minivans: this year's models have the foldable third-row seat, last year's vans don't. But they disagree over whether that makes Graham's commercial misleading.

So, we should look for an answer choice that discusses whether it is misleading to claim that a company doesn't offer something when the company only recently began offering it. And since it needs to agree with the Graham executive's perspective, it'll probably be something like, "it is not misleading to accuse a company of not offering a product feature that they offer on some models currently for sale."

Answer Choice Explanation:
Right away, this matches our anticipation. It's worded in a somewhat confusing way (on purpose — much like some lawyers, the LSAT loves to confuse you with bad writing). But try adding some details from the passage to make more sense of it: "It's not misleading for [Graham Motor Company] to advertise that its [minivan] has a [foldable third-row seat] that [Zahler Motors's minivan] lacks if some [Zahler Motors minivans] that are currently offered lack the [foldable third-row seat.]" Once we do that, it should be clear that this answer choice supports Graham's perspective — the ad isn't misleading since at least some of Zahler's minivans lack the foldable third-row seat.

Key Takeaway:
This question could have also been classified as a Principle (Strengthen) question, since each answer choice was a principle and the correct answer choice strengthens the Graham executive's argument. Moreover, the strategy for that question type (identify the argument's premises and conclusion, and then diagram a principle that states "Premise → Conclusion") would have worked quite well here. It's yet another reminder that many Logical Reasoning skills (in this case, the ability to identify the principle/assumption underlying an argument) transcend question types!

Neither speaker mentioned executives' awareness. Graham didn't claim to be unaware Zahler had added foldable third-row seats for the newer model! He just pointed out that older models still available for sale don't have that feature.

Neither speaker mentions whether most consumers would choose a minivan solely because it has a foldable third-row seat. So, this is another issue neither speaker has an opinion on, failing the "both speakers must have an opinion" criterion for a correct answer.

Anything starting with "it is misleading" can be instantly eliminated because a rule for what is misleading can only support Zahler's conclusion. Graham's conclusion is about what's not misleading. Therefore, the prinicple underlying Graham's argument would have to describe conditions that would make a claim not misleading..

Same problem as with (D). No rule for what is misleading can possibly be correct for this prompt, because Graham's conclusion is about what's not misleading.