PrepTest 157

[lcid:3725] Prep Test 157 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

The average tax refund Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Diagrammable? If yes, diagram out premises and conclusion. Note key identifiable characteristics of argument (How many premises? Quantifiers? Ands/ors? Didn't reverse or negate?). Can also convert specific terms in diagram to As, Bs, Cs, Ds, etc. Eliminate an answer choice as soon as you notice it doesn't possess a key identifiable characteristic the passage possesses Diagram remaining until you find a matching flaw If not, paraphrase what the flaw is Checking to see if a common logical fallacies is committed is very helpful Select answer choice that has the same flaw

Answer Anticipation

Although the conclusion is an "if-then" statement, the premise is not. That tells us we shouldn't diagram this argument. Instead, we'll try to describe the flaw and look for the same one in the answer choices. Experienced test-takers will notice that the conclusion is prescriptive — it asserts that people "should" use a tax preparation service. Plus, the argument describes the goal that using such a service will accomplish: tax services will give users large refunds. This conclusion suggests that the author assumes that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between using a tax preparation service and getting a large refund. (In general, when a conclusion features an "if-then" statement with a "should" on the "then" side, the argument assumes that there's a cause-and-effect relationship — that the "then" will cause the "if.") Although the premises establish that those who use those services receive refunds that are, on average, 50% higher, that doesn't mean that the service caused those refunds to be higher than they otherwise would. There could be other explanations for the larger refunds. Perhaps people who use tax services are more cautious with their taxes and, thus, are more likely to overpay on their taxes and be entitled to larger refunds. Whatever the reason, this is a causation flaw, and we can look for that flaw in the answer choices. Some test-takers also like to use the "Kirkland" strategy on these questions. The "Kirkland" strategy describes an argument's structure rather than its content. To use the "Kirkland" strategy, we'll simply remove any reference to the subject matter and replace it with a generic descriptor (much like Costco replaces brand-named items with generic "Kirkland" versions of those products). So, let's replace "average tax refund received" with the generic "A," "taxpayers who use tax preparation services" with "those who use B," and "those who do not" with "those who do not use B." And let's replace "50 percent higher" with just "higher." So, the Kirkland version of this argument is, "A is, on average, higher for those who use B than for those who don't use B. Therefore, if you want a high A, use B." We'll look for the answer choice that matches this "Kirkland" version of the argument. We can also expedite our review of the answer choices if we take a conclusion-out approach. We should compare each answer choice's conclusion to the passage's conclusion. The answer choice's conclusion should sound like, "if you want a high A, use B." If an answer choice's conclusion doesn't resemble that, we can eliminate it without bothering with the answer choice's premises.

Answer choices

  1. A
    People who invest heavily Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    This conclusion sounds a lot like the passage's conclusion! It matches, "if you want a high A, use B," with "income" standing in for "A" (rather than "tax refund") and "invest heavily in the stock market" standing in for "B" (rather than "use a tax preparation service"). This matches the passage's conclusion, so we should examine the premises to see if they also match.

    The premises sound a lot like "A is, on average, higher for those who use B than for those who don't use B," too. In this answer choice, we learn that those who invest heavily in the stock market (i.e., "use B") have, on average, higher incomes (i.e., higher "As") than those who do not invest (i.e., "do not use B"). So, this argument's premises and conclusion match the passage's.

    And, of course, this is the same causation flaw as the one committed in the passage. Just because people who invest in the stock market have higher incomes doesn't mean that investing causes their incomes to be higher. There could be another explanation for their higher incomes — people who invest could be more money-motivated than those who do not, so they pursue jobs with higher salaries. This parallels the causation flaw in the passage, so we can select (A) and advance to the following question.

  2. B
    Establishing an in-house print Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This conclusion doesn't quite sound like the passage's conclusion. Rather than saying, "if you want a high A, use B," it says, "if you do A, use B." So, rather than setting a goal that "B" can accomplish, this answer choice specifies a group to which "B" applies. So, this answer choice's conclusion doesn't imply a cause-and-effect relationship, unlike the passage. This is enough reason to eliminate (B) without reviewing the premises.

    If we reviewed the rest of the argument, we'd also see that it doesn't parallel the passage's flaw. Rather than comparing two groups, this answer choice's premise shows that using one thing usually causes something to occur (using an in-house print shop usually causes companies to produce publications more efficiently). Because this answer choice puts the cause-and-effect relationship in the premise, it doesn't commit the same causation flaw as the passage.

  3. C
    Quitting smoking will lower Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This conclusion sounds a bit like the passage's conclusion, as long as we modify "high A" to "low A." So, it resembles, "if you want a low A, use B," with "life insurance premium" standing in for "A" (rather than "tax refund") and "reduce risk of lung cancer" standing in for "B" (rather than "use a tax preparation service"). Since this matches the passage's conclusion, we should examine the premises to see if they also match.

    Once we review the rest of the argument, we'll see that it doesn't parallel the passage's flaw. Rather than comparing two groups, this answer choice's premise shows that using one thing usually causes two things to occur (quitting smoking causes one to have a lower life insurance premium and lower risk of lung cancer). This answer choice commits a causation flaw (A causes B and C, so B must cause C). But it's not the same type of causation flaw as the one in the passage (A is higher for those who do B, so B must cause A).

  4. D
    People with larger-than-average estates Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This conclusion doesn't match the passage's. It doesn't say, "if you want a high A, use B." Instead, it says, "if you have A, use B." So, rather than setting a goal that "B" can accomplish, this answer choice specifies a group to which "B" applies. In other words, this answer choice's conclusion doesn't imply a cause-and-effect relationship, unlike the passage. That's reason enough to eliminate (D) without reviewing the premises.

    If we reviewed the rest of the argument, we'd see that it doesn't parallel the passage's flaw either. Rather than comparing two groups, this answer choice's premise shows a particular group usually finds something helpful (those with larger-than-average estates usually find having their own lawyers helpful). This argument doesn't express any cause-and-effect relationships, so it doesn't commit the same causation flaw as the passage.

  5. E
    In deciding who they Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    This conclusion sounds a bit like the passage's conclusion, although it's a negative (rather than a positive) statement. It implies a cause-and-effect relationship — that purchasing things from telemarketers causes telemarketers to call you. This is close enough to the passage's conclusion, so we should examine the premises to see if they also match.

    Once we review the rest of the argument, we'll see that it doesn't parallel the passage's flaw. Rather than comparing two groups, this answer choice's premise says that purchasing things from telemarketers actually causes them to call you in the future. So, this doesn't commit a correlation-to-causation flaw. In fact, it's a reasonable argument!

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion