Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 3 · Question 1

Flawed

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true

Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:

Rules out possible alternate cause Shows same cause, same effect Shows no cause, no effect Shows the cause and effect are not reversed

If not causal argument, anticipate ways to fix problem with argument

Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would strengthen argument

On Strengthen questions, the correct answer usually helps fix a flaw in the argument. This is why experienced LSATers try to identify the problems with the argument first. Once they identify the problem, they're better prepared to find the answer choice that fixes that problem and strengthens the argument. Causation flaws are the most common issue on these questions, so experienced test-takers look for that problem first. This particular argument doesn't appear to be causal, so we should look for a different problem. To do so, we can focus on the conclusion. Notice that it makes a strong selection — organic apple orchards are "likely to be more profitable" than conventional orchards. Conclusions that select one option over the other usually don't consider enough evidence to make that selection. In this case, the argument selects organic orchards as the more profitable option but only bases that decision on how expensive running each option is and how good the apples taste. Surely, there are other factors to consider — like how many apples each option sells and how much they can charge for those apples. The correct answer could provide information on these topics, asserting that more people buy better-tasting apples or that better-tasting apples command a higher price. You could also think of the flaw as a "concept switch" if this makes more sense to you. The argument introduces a new, important idea in the conclusion — which type of orchard is "more profitable." When an argument introduces a new, important term in the conclusion, the argument often commits a "concept switch" (also known as an "equivocation"). The argument assumes that a concept discussed in the premises is the same as the new concept in the conclusion. In this case, the argument assumes that "better-tasting apples" is the same as "more profitable apples." Again, the correct answer could strengthen the argument by linking those ideas, such as saying that better-tasting apples tend to sell more, command a higher price, or be more profitable in the long run. (Notice how conceptualizing the flaw as a "concept switch" led us to a very similar anticipation as conceptualizing it as a selection flaw. Let this be a reminder that the flaws we identify are merely a tool to make an anticipation and that we don't have to all identify the same flaw to make a helpful anticipation!)