#3 - Millions of homes are now using low-energy lighting

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Evaluate the ArgumentX. The correct answer choice is (B)

In an Evaluate the Argument question, your task is to find the answer that provides information that
would help you evaluate the validity on the argument. However, this is an Except question, so the
correct answer will provide information that does NOT help you evaluate the argument, while the
four incorrect answers will help you evaluate it.

Premise: millions of homes are now using low-energy lighting, but millions more do
not

Premise: the government and the home lighting industry are eager for the “millions
more” to switch to low-energy lighting

Premise: although low-wattage bulbs cost more per bulb than normal bulbs, their
advantages to the homeowner are enormous

Conclusion: thus, everyone should use low-wattage bulbs

The only support offered for the conclusion that everyone should use low-wattage bulbs is that
“the advantages to the homeowners are enormous.” Because those “advantages” are unstated, your
prephrase for the incorrect answer choices is they may detail an advantage that would help you
evaluate the argument. Also, the argument told you the low-wattage bulbs cost more per bulb than
normal bulbs, so finding out the actual cost of the bulbs could help you evaluate the conclusion.

The correct answer in this question will not help you evaluate the argument, because it is irrelevant
to the conclusion.

Answer choice (A): Information about the actual cost of using the bulb in comparison to the normal
bulbs would help you evaluate whether the difference in cost outweighs the bulb’s benefits.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This choice does nothing to help you
evaluate the conclusion that you should use low-wattage bulbs, because it tells you only how the
home lighting industry would benefit from you buying them, rather than additional detail regarding
whether or not you would benefit.

Answer choice (C): Information about the actual cost of buying the bulb in comparison to the normal
bulbs would help you evaluate whether the difference in cost outweighs the bulb’s benefits.

Answer choice (D): A testimonial, whether positive or negative, from a bulb user would help you
evaluate the benefits of using the bulb.

Answer choice (E): Information about long the more expensive, low-energy bulbs last would help
you evaluate your cost over time of using the low-energy bulbs, and so helps you evaluate whether
everyone should use low-wattage bulbs.

[tizwvu34]

Answer choice A uses the phrase "burning a bulb" synonymously with "using a bulb". I'm not sure what generation this colloquial phrase is from, but it defiantly threw me, as I took it as the literal sense of burning the bulb during my blind review.

[Dave Killoran]

Answer choice A uses the phrase "burning a bulb" synonymously with "using a bulb". I'm not sure what generation this colloquial phrase is from, but it defiantly threw me, as I took it as the literal sense of burning the bulb during my blind review.

Hey T,

Thanks for the note! It's probably the way they used it that threw you as opposed to the idea. What you quite frequently hear today is, "That light is burned out." Well, that comes from the idea that when it is on, the light is burning. But we say that less than the "burned out" phrase, hence that may be what threw you off.

It also traces back to light bulbs being primarily incandescent with heated filaments (hence the "burning"), and those are becoming less frequent these days, although still common enough that I could easily see this usage appearing on an LSAT today!

Thanks!

[pmuffley]

Hello! Having a hard time understanding why B is wrong. If you can understand what the industry stands to gain, that would be important in helping you understand if you're being taken for a ride or if you should really get the bulb.

For example, Apple tries to push new products on people when nothing about their product has really changed. But because it is the "next best thing" people buy it. When I go to buy something Apple puts out, I evaluate what the company stands to make and if they are just trying to pull one over on me or if the product is really worth my money. My sister and I just had a conversation about this the other day too so I know it's not just me. This kind of thinking was second hand to me, so I didn't feel like I was reading into the answer choice too much because it was my first thought.

Can you help?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

While that might be of interest to us in the real world, pmuffley, that's not because of a logical connection between the proponents' claims and their motives, but because understanding their motives might make us question the truthfulness of their claims for other-than-logical reasons. On the LSAT, a world in which logic rules supreme, focusing on the motives or background or interests of a person making an argument is a logical flaw, known as an ad hominem or source argument flaw. We are generally not supposed to care about motives, but just about whether their conclusion follows logically from their premises, which are assumed to be true.

Why should we care about the profits accruing to the lighting industry, so long as we are getting a lightbulb that is at least as good as the old kind at a lower overall cost to purchase and use? If we are being generous about it, we might even want them to make a huge profit that they could use to hire more people, raise wages, and generally improve the lives of everyone involved. Let's imagine three scenarios:

1) They are expecting big profits, more than they would with the old bulbs. So what? Does this mean that we shouldn't use the low-wattage bulbs? Couldn't we still be better off with the new bulbs? You might want them to make less profit by lowering the price, but you still could be saving money.

2) They are breaking even compared to the old bulbs, making no more and no less than they would have. Again, so what? Does this support the claim that we should make the switch, or undermine it? No to both - it's not relevant.

3) They are going to make less profit, and maybe even lose money. While this might make me more likely to believe their claims - they are, after all, acting against the financial interests in pushing the new product - it gives no logical support to the claim that we should switch. It's more like emotional support, circumstantial evidence rather than direct. And it could cut the other way: I don't want the people in that industry to lose money, cutting jobs and harming the overall economy! That could come back to bite me in the long run!

So, knowing what profits they are making isn't really helpful in logically evaluating the claim that we should make the switch. We have to set aside those emotion-based reasons, and the assumptions that they entail, and focus only on the logical structure of the argument. In this case, that comes down to "what does each type of bulb cost to buy and to use, how long do they each last, and how do they compare in quality/impact on my life to the old kind?" That's the stuff that matters in determining whether we should make the switch!

[pmuffley]

Thank you, Adam!

You've been so helpful. I'm reviewing my answers to preptest 66 and about to start the formal logic section in the LR bible. I think that chapter addresses the logical flaw you mentioned so I'm sure I'll be much better prepared on future questions.

Again, thanks!