PrepTest 143

Incorrect. The Hydro doesn't need to be the most popular highly fuel-efficient car for the argument to work. Rather, it just needs to be gaining popularity/sales while others are losing it—even if it's still not at the top of the heap.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Background Ð The Hydro's sales are rising while competitors are in decline
Hydro's manufacturer Ð Surging sales are due to price and fuel efficiency
Rebuttal Ð The price and fuel efficiency are similar to competitors
Conclusion Ð The sales are more likely because people want others to think they've gone green

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has a structure that we see repeatedly on the LSAT, and a type of logic that we see repeatedly.

The structure is phenomenon/explanation. Here, the phenomenon is the Hydro's sales surge during a time when the competitors are in decline. It rules out two possible explanations (price; fuel efficiency) while concluding a third as the true explanation (wanting to appear environmentally conscious).

And this is where the comparison comes in—the two explanations that are ruled out are done so because they're similar to the competition. As such, those similarities can't explain the difference in sales.

Similarly, however, the desire to appear environmentally conscious can't be a valid explanation, either, if the other highly fuel-efficient cars also make one appear green to their neighbors. The argument never discusses the perception people have of the drivers of the Hydro's competition. In order for the argument to hold, that perception has to be different than the one attributed to the Hydro—people can't view those who drive the competitor's cars as equally environmentally conscious. If they do, then the argument falls apart. Let's find an answer establishing this difference.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights that the Hydro is relevantly different from the competition as far as perception of environmental friendliness is concerned. If the Hydro wasn't recognized as more environmentally friendly than the competition, then that couldn't serve as an explanation for the different changes in sales.

Key Takeaway:
Comparisons are important on the LSAT and should be noted when used as a basis for the conclusion, or when the conclusion draws one. When trying to explain a difference between two things, it'll generally be necessary to establish another relevant difference.

Incorrect. This answer suggests an alternative reason that Hydro sales could be surging, thus undermining the argument.

Incorrect. This doesn't need to be true for the argument to hold—Hydro buyers just need to think their neighbors will believe them to be environmentally conscious for driving one.

Incorrect. While cynical to state, wanting to appear environmentally conscious doesn't guarantee you care about the environment, so this answer is out of scope.