PrepTest 118

Incorrect. This answer describes a causality flaw (specifically, reversed causality), but the only causality in the stimulus isn't related to the flaw (the assumed causality between advertising and increased market share, which doesn't have to do with the results of the survey and current market share), so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. This answer describes a conditional flaw (specifically, an illegal reversal), but there's no formal logic in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer describes an absence of evidence flaw. However, the argument uses survey data to reach its point, not a shortcoming of an opposing point to prove itself.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Goal — Get Hero soft drink to dominate the market
Approach — Expensive advertising campaign
Study — 72% of people believe Hero already dominates the market
Conclusion — Hero already dominates the market and just needs to maintain market share

Answer Anticipation:
There's a key word in this stimulus that suggests one of the "second—tier" common errors in reasoning—not as common as comparisons correlation/causation or conditional flaws but frequent enough that you should be aware of it.

That word? "Opinion." Whenever you see a stimulus bring up what a group believes thinks or says check to see if that's used to support a conclusion about reality. If it does make such a jump then the argument is committing a Perception vs. Reality flaw. Just because 72% of consumers believe that a soft drink dominates the market doesn't mean that it does dominate the market—that perception could be driven by the advertisements not the reality of the market!

There are two other features in this stimulus that suggest certain flaws but those flaws don't end up being present. First the stimulus relies on a study suggesting a sampling flaw. However the sample isn't really specified so there's no reason to believe it isn't representative. An answer could insert a reason but that's less likely. Second there's a percentage listed which could hint at a Percent vs. Amount flaw. However the argument doesn't jump to a number/amount so this flaw isn't present.

Answer Explanation:
This answer describes the Perception vs. Reality flaw from the stimulus. The survey data shows that most people believe Hero dominates the soft drink market and the argument treats that as establishing that it actually does dominate the soft drink market. This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Specific language/concepts suggest specific flaws. Whenever an argument brings up what people believe/think/say that's inherently subjective and doesn't necessarily reflect reality.

Bonus — "Knowing" something implies that it's true so if the LSAT states something is known then that thing is true and the person who knows it subjectively believes it. However that still has an element of subjectivity to it and just because someone knows one thing doesn't mean they believe all of the consequences or valid inferences derived from it!

Incorrect. The conclusion states that the survey results prove that Harrold Foods dominates the soft drink market "now" and thus need to "maintain" their current market share. Thus it doesn't assume that the past results will continue into the future—it says that they will continue into the future if Harrold Foods maintains the status quo.