Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 4 · Question 15

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen

Passage Summary:
One should only buy frying pans with a warranty. If manufacturers thought a warranty would mean they'd have to reimburse many customers, they would not offer the warranty.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
1. Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:
1. Rules out possible alternate cause
2. Shows same cause, same effect
3. Shows no cause, no effect
4. Shows the cause and effect are not reversed
3. If not causal argument, anticipate ways to fix problem with argument
4. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would strengthen argument

Answer Anticipation:
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 seem to be causal, so we should look for a different problem.

... And this is where most people get stuck on this problem. The reasoning in this argument will appear sound to most of us. A manufacturer probably wouldn't offer warranties if their frying pans were so bad that they'd have to reimburse all their customers. So, a warranty seems like good evidence of a frying pan's quality!

So, what's the problem? The author assumes that a warranty is strong evidence of a frying pan's quality. But can you think of some ways a manufacturer could offer a warranty on a bad frying pan? If you can, that's great. Even if we can't anticipate a precise way a manufacturer could offer a warranty on a bad frying pan, at least we'll know the correct answer could eliminate at least one of those ways.

If we can't anticipate why this argument is flawed, this question would provide a good opportunity to break out the backup plan. To resort to the backup plan, we'll re-read the premises. Then, we'll say, "Plus," and re-read the answer choice. Finally, we'll say, "So," and re-read this argument's conclusion. If that argument makes sense, we'll know the answer choice strengthens the argument. If the argument doesn't make much sense, then we can cross that answer choice off. Here's a simplified template we can use for this backup plan (note that we simplified the premise and conclusion):

"If manufacturers thought a warranty would mean they'd have to reimburse many customers, they would not offer the warranty.

"Plus, [answer choice].

"So, one should only buy frying pans with a warranty."

Answer Choice Explanation:
This argument is flawed because it assumes that frying pan manufacturers would not offer a warranty on a bad frying pan. But there are some ways a manufacturer could offer a warranty on a bad frying pan. Perhaps the warranty is extremely limited (e.g., the warranty only lasts for two days), preventing most consumers from taking advantage of the warranty. Or, perhaps the manufacturer knows that most people are too lazy or busy or just don't care enough to take advantage of a frying pan warranty. In that case, the manufacturer wouldn't have to reimburse all the customers who aren't happy with their frying pan.

This answer choice strengthens the argument by eliminating one way a manufacturer could offer a warranty on a bad frying pan. It shows that most people would actually take advantage of the warranty if they weren't happy with their frying pans. The frying pan manufacturer would actually have to reimburse all the unhappy customers who purchased a frying pan with a warranty. That supports the author's belief that a manufacturer would not offer a warranty on a bad frying pan. Offering a warranty on a bad frying pan would mean that the manufacturer would "need to reimburse many customers," and we know manufacturers wouldn't offer a warranty if they had to do that. So, a frying pan warranty seems like evidence of the frying pan's quality.

You could also select (A) using the backup plan. This is the argument we'd construct if we used the backup plan (note that we simplified the premise, conclusion, and answer choice to make the argument easier to read):

"If manufacturers thought a warranty would mean they'd have to reimburse many customers, they would not offer the warranty. Plus, most people who buy a frying pan with a warranty would seek reimbursement if they weren't happy with the frying pan. So, one should only buy frying pans with a warranty."

This makes some sense. The first sentence suggests that if manufacturers thought they'd have to reimburse many unhappy customers, they wouldn't offer a warranty. The second sentence adds that frying pan manufacturers would have to reimburse their customers if the customers weren't happy with their frying pan. The two sentences together suggest that frying pan manufacturers probably wouldn't offer a warranty on a frying pan that wouldn't satisfy their customers, which supports the last sentence's recommendation.

No matter our approach, we can confidently select (A).

Key Takeaway:
It may seem initially counterintuitive, but finding the weaknesses in arguments is an important first step in strengthening an argument. On harder Strengthen questions (the ones you might actually need our help on), the correct answer rarely introduces a new fact that directly supports the conclusion. Instead, the correct answer on harder Strengthen questions will address the argument's reasoning by fixing a problem with that reasoning. On this question, many of the tempting wrong answers seem to provide new facts that directly support the conclusion. Only the correct answer addresses the argument's reasoning.

This says that frying pans with warranties work as well or better than frying pans without warranties — at the time of the purchase. This makes it sound like we may as well buy frying pans with warranties, right? A lot of test-makers think so.

Unfortunately, this line of reasoning is incorrect. This answer choice doesn't tell us that frying pans with warranties will continue to work as well or better than frying pans without warranties. If frying pans without warranties last longer or perform better long-term, maybe we should buy those instead.

Plus — and this is the important takeaway point — this answer choice doesn't address the argument's reasoning. It doesn't show how a manufacturer's warranty provides evidence that the manufacturer is willing to put its money where its proverbial mouth is to stand behind the quality. Instead, the answer choice just introduces a new fact that seems to directly support the conclusion (but, for the reason mentioned above, doesn't actually support the conclusion). The correct answers to some relatively easy Strengthen questions will add a new fact that directly supports the conclusion. But the correct answers on harder Strengthen questions — the ones you might actually need our help on — will almost never do that. Instead, the correct answer on harder Strengthen questions will address the argument's reasoning by fixing a problem with that reasoning.

You could also eliminate (B) with the backup plan. This is the argument we'd construct if we used the backup plan (note that we simplified the premise, conclusion, and answer choice to make the argument easier to read):

"If manufacturers thought a warranty would mean they'd have to reimburse many customers, they would not offer the warranty. Plus, frying pans with warranties work as well or better than frying pans without warranties at the time of purchase. So, one should only buy frying pans with a warranty."

This doesn't make a ton of sense. The claim that frying pans with warranties only work as well as warranty-less frying pans "at the time of purchase" does not provide strong evidence that warranties guarantee long-term quality. Plus, it doesn't relate to the first sentence's claim, which makes the argument sound disjointed and awkward.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently eliminate (B).

This is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't show why a warranty would guarantee a quality frying pan. And we can't assume that a frying that costs more must be of higher quality.

You could also eliminate (C) with the backup plan. This is the argument we'd construct if we used the backup plan (note that we simplified the premise, conclusion, and answer choice to make the argument easier to read):

"If manufacturers thought a warranty would mean they'd have to reimburse many customers, they would not offer the warranty. Plus, the more a frying pan costs, the more likely it'll be covered by a warranty. So, one should only buy frying pans with a warranty."

This doesn't sound like a cogent argument. The second sentence makes it sound like a warranty will make a frying pan more expensive, which sounds like a reason we shouldn't buy frying pans covered by warranties. Plus, the second sentence doesn't relate to the first sentence's claim, which makes the argument sound disjointed and awkward.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently eliminate (C).

This is irrelevant to the argument. The argument didn't assert that we should buy the most expensive frying pans. It asserted that we should only buy frying pans with warranties. So, this answer choice doesn't show why a warranty would evidence a frying pan's quality.

You could also eliminate (D) with the backup plan. This is the argument we'd construct if we used the backup plan (note that we simplified the premise, conclusion, and answer choice to make the argument easier to read):

"If manufacturers thought a warranty would mean they'd have to reimburse many customers, they would not offer the warranty. Plus, the most expensive frying pans will work the best for many years. So, one should only buy frying pans with a warranty."

This doesn't sound very good. The second sentence has nothing to do with the first or third sentences. It sounds like a complete nonsequitur, so this doesn't sound like a cogent paragraph that makes a convincing argument.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently eliminate (D).

This says that frying pans warranties provide for "full customer satisfaction." Does this strengthen the author's belief that warranties are a mark of the frying pan's quality?

No. Even if the warranties cover "full customer satisfaction" (whatever that means), that still doesn't address the argument's central flaw. The author thinks that a warranty will guarantee some level of frying pan quality since manufacturers wouldn't offer a warranty if they thought they'd have to reimburse a bunch of unhappy customers. But we don't know whether unhappy customers will actually take advantage of the warranty and seek reimbursement.

If we knew that frying pan customers never took advantage of warranties, we could put a bad frying pan on the market and write whatever we wanted in the warranty. We could say, "If you are not 100% satisfied with your frying pan, we will not only give you a full refund, we will give you full ownership of this frying pan company in perpetuity." Our warranty wouldn't show that we are 100% confident in our frying pan's quality. Our warranty would only show that we are 100% confident that our customers won't take advantage of the warranty. (E) doesn't strengthen the argument because it doesn't address that central issue in the author's reasoning.

You could also eliminate (E) with the backup plan. This is the argument we'd construct if we used the backup plan (note that we simplified the premise, conclusion, and answer choice to make the argument easier to read):

"If manufacturers thought a warranty would mean they'd have to reimburse many customers, they would not offer the warranty. Plus, most frying pan manufacturers' warranties provide for full customer satisfaction. So, one should only buy frying pans with a warranty."

This doesn't sound terrible, but it doesn't sound as cogent or persuasive as the argument we'd construct with (A). The claim that warranties provide for "full customer satisfaction" doesn't address the first sentence's claim about the manufacturers' reasoning in offering a warranty. This makes the argument sound a little awkward.

No matter which approach we use, we can confidently eliminate (E).