#17 - Advertiser: There’s nothing wrong with a tool that has

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D)

The advertiser in this stimulus asserts that because the advertiser’s product, the VersaTool, performs
more functions than any other tool, a VersaTool user will need other tools less often than when using
alternative multi-function tools.

The question stems asks how the advertiser’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism. In
prephrasing an answer, one should look skeptically at the advertiser’s claims. The claim here is that
using a VersaTool will require one to use fewer tools and use them less often than if he or she were to
use another multi-purpose tool.

The legitimacy of this claim rests entirely on how commonly or often the functions on the VersaTool
are used, so the vulnerability in the argument lies in the fact that if the VersaTool’s functions are not
commonly used or needed, the claim in the ad is invalid regardless of how many functions it has.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice might be attractive because it notes the inclusion of useless
tools on the VersaTool. But it is not the tools that are not used that are important; it is how often the
VersaTool’s tools are used that will determine the credibility of the claims in the ad.

Answer choice (B): If anything, the fact that the VersaTool would perform such difficult functions
would strengthen the advertiser’s claims, because one would be still be using the VersaTool to
perform functions that would normally require other tools. This would serve to bolster the claim that
the VersaTool might make other multi-tools less useful by comparison.

Answer choice (C): If the claims in the ad concerned relative cost effectiveness, this assertion might
come into play. Since the comparison deals with functionality, however, the fact that the VersaTool is
more expensive is irrelevant to the advertiser’s actual claims, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If the VersaTool might be able to perform
fewer often-needed functions than some other multi-function tool, this is another way of saying that
another tool might perform a greater number of the often-needed functions, rendering the advertiser’s
claims invalid.

Answer choice (E): The ad’s claims compare the number of functions, rather than how well the
VersaTool performs each of those functions; this statement is irrelevant to the advertiser’s claim that
a user of the VersaTool would need additional tools less often than with other multi-function tools.

[ehilliard]

When I first read the question, my prephrase was exactly that of answer choice E. I reasoned that this VersaTool might not perform some tasks at a high enough quality, requiring you to need additional tools.

However, E makes sense too. If the tool doesn't allow you to complete common tasks, you will need to use other tools more often.

Can you explain the distinction between the two answer choices? Does D work better because of "common tasks" testing the claim about needing tools "less often?"

Thanks,
Erin

[cecilia]

Hi Erin - I'm not an instructor but thought I'd offer up my experience with this question and a possible explanation for why E is wrong.

I reasoned exactly as you did and unfortunately fell for (E) as well. (Funny how it is that LSAT writers know exactly how to get us! ) Here's the issue with E, tho: The conclusion is not that you won't need other tools once you have the amazing, 16-tool Versatool. Rather, it's concluding that you'll need to reach for other tools less often . But just because the versatool has the most functions doesn't mean that all those functions are useful for a given task. I still might have to reach for another multi-function tool that has functions that actually help for the given task. (D) points out that flaw.

So whether (E), "single-function" tools were able to perform individual tasks better - that doesn't affect the conclusion here, which is comparing the versatool to other multi-function tools.

Hope that didn't completely confuse you even more....

[ehilliard]

Hi Cecilia,

Thanks for the response! That makes sense to me. I see now how the qualifier in the conclusion about using the VersaTool "less often" makes D the better choice. E in concerned with quality whereas D is concerned with quantity. Gotta watch out for those little details!

Appreciate your thoughts!
-Erin

[Nikki Siclunov]

Erin and Cecilia,

You two nailed this one! Cecilia - your explanation is spot-on. Nobody is saying that multi-purpose tools can perform each individual function better than the individual tools can. VersaTool's claim to fame is simply that you'll need fewer additional individual tools to perform the necessary tasks. The issue is quantity, not quality: how well VersaTool performs the tasks it is intended to perform falls outside the scope of this argument.

Good job, guys! Few people realize this, but you get much, much better at this test when you start explaining it to someone else. Keep up the good work.

Nikki

[olafimihan.k]

I understand the explanation for answer choice A but I guess I'm not understanding how its any different from answer choice D. Wouldn't "fewer often-needed functions" be the same as "functions that are infrequently or never used"?

Please help

Thanks

[Eric Ockert]

Hi!

Actually, these two ideas are essentially opposites of each other. In answer choice (A), we are talking about "functions that are infrequently or never needed." These are essentially functions no one uses. Answer choice (D) is talking about "often-needed functions." In other words, functions most everyone uses. So the question is, is the flaw here that:

A. The tool might have some things no one really uses.

OR

D. The might have fewer things that lots of people would use than other multi-function tools.

If the VersaTool really has fewer of those things in answer (D), that means you would probably need additional tools more often rather than less often.

Hope that helps!

[cinnamonpeeler]

I'm failing to see the distinction between answer choices A and D. I took them to express the same idea, though D doing so more directly, which is why I picked it.

(D) VersaTool might be able to perform fewer of the often-needed functions than some other multiple-function tool (e.g., SuperTool). Because it includes fewer of the often-needed functions, you might end up needing more additional tools than you would with SuperTool, which includes more of the often-needed functions.

Doesn't (A) say the same thing?

(A) VersaTool might include some functions that are infrequently or never needed. If VersaTool has, say, 20 functions, and among these 20 functions 8 are infrequently or never needed, that leaves only 12 functions that are actually useful or somewhat frequently/often needed. Compare this to SuperTool, which only has 18 functions, but all 18 functions are somewhat frequently/often needed. Would you not need other tools less often if you have SuperTool vs. the VersaTool?

[Adam Tyson]

Those ideas are close, cinnamonpeeler, but not the same. Part of the problem is that you are confusing the number of attachments to the tool - an idea that is not actually presented in the stimulus - with the number of things the tool can do. Being able to do some rare things doesn't mean the same thing as having some attachments that are rarely needed (I'm picturing now a Swiss Army knife that has a thingie that is only good for one job that I will never do, like re-sealing a half-full beer bottle).

Answer A is saying the tool may be able to do some things that you might not need it to do. That doesn't have to diminish the number of things that it can do that you would need it to do, it could just be a bonus! That actually helps - you are that much less likely to need another tool, even when faced with that rare and unusual task. It can do everything you always need it to do, plus some things you might not need.

Answer D is saying it may NOT able to do some of the things you would want it to do, and that is the real flaw here. If that is the case, then perhaps someone with the Versa Tool might still need a lot of additional tools to get those essential jobs done.

Don't add ideas to the argument that aren't in there! Nobody said anything about attachments, and just because a tool does one job doesn't mean it cannot also do another!

[German.Steel]

Whoo boy...(D) clearly works here, so I'm not going to raise too much of a stink. BUT (A) clearly works as well, and I'm guessing that if the test-writers had a second bite at this particular apple, they might re-word (A) to make it more clearly off-the-mark.

Evidence: Our tool has more functions than any other tool!
Conclusion: Using our tool, you'll need to use other tools less often than you would need to with any other tool.

(A) and (D) are speaking to the same gap...what if the functions of the tools that VersaTool offer aren't as helpful/useful as some other tool? (D) makes it explicitly comparative, and works just fine. But (A) clearly works as well! If VersaTool has useless functions, and our ENTIRE ARGUMENT is built on the evidence that VersaTool has more functions than any other tool, then the connection between our evidence and our conclusion is totally busted. (A) calls out this flaw precisely.

But at the end of the day, it just felt like the test-writers were going for (D), given what I've seen with how they construct right answers/wrong answers on this kind of question. But I was definitely on dicey ground, knowing that there were two right answers, and just going with what I know about the tendency of the test-writers. Can I get one more YIKES for (A)??? {Rant over, thank you.}