#1 - People who accuse the postal service of incompetence

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

In this stimulus an emotional argument is presented about postal service, letters, and value. The conclusion is that "postal service is undervalued." The author defends this conclusion with the premise that "few experiences are more enjoyable than reading a letter from a friend." Like many emotional arguments, this stimulus equates two things that are not the same: postal service and receiving a letter. No matter how enjoyable reading a letter may be, it does not affect the value of postal service. In flaw questions be sure to pay careful attention to the conclusion of the argument; make sure to know exactly what the argument is claiming.


Answer Choice (A): This answer choice is incorrect because of the first sentence. The stimulus never suggests that the postal service is "competent" or "efficient." The argument is not about competency or efficiency, but about value.

Answer Choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect because the stimulus does not claim the increase is insignificant; it claims that the postal service is undervalued.

Answer Choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. It demonstrates the confusion concerning value inherent in the stimulus. The conclusion claims that postal service is undervalued, but only offers evidence about the object, the letter, that is delivered. The value of the letter does not affect the value of the delivery service.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because the stimulus does not appeal to an outside authority. This is a classic reasoning flaw and may tempt some test takers because it sounds familiar; do not fall for the temptation.

Answer Choice (E): This answer choice is incorrect because it is entirely unrelated to the stimulus. Whether or not the "people" of the first sentence are employees is entirely irrelevant. It does bring up the old idea of the "disgruntled postman," Newman would appreciate this answer choice, but you should laugh and move on.

[bk1111]

Hi, I got this question incorrect. I thought the conclusion was "...do not know a bargain when they see one." Where in the stimulus does it say the postal service is "undervalued"?

I was stuck between B and C and ultimately chose B because I didn't think the author was "confusing" the two as stated in answer choice C. Can someone explain what "confuse" means in LSAT context. I have stumbled upon many answer choices that use "confuses..." and does it mean the author literally confuses two concepts? This seemed like the author was conflating the "value" of two things, i.e. the nostalgic value of a letter and value of in monetary terms.

Can you also explain why B in incorrect? I think I chose B in part because I misidentified the conclusion. I thought "do not know a bargain when they see one" could be interpreted as "increase is insignificant."

Thanks for your help in advance...

[Malila Robinson]

Hi bk1111,
The part that you quoted is the conclusion and the entire first sentence sets up the flaw in the argument of linking 2 different kinds of value as if they both meant the same thing. This is what the answer choice means by confuses, the author is using value in a way that shifts in meaning in the argument.

The first value is linked to the 5 cent increase (which is a monetary type of value), the second value comes from the author saying that the postal service is a bargain (because getting hand written letters is emotionally valuable).

B is incorrect because a Flaw in the Reasoning question cannot bring in outside information, it is in the Prove Family, so you need to look at the information presented in the argument to see where the reasoning is flawed. In B the argument does not claim the price increase is insignificant, instead it shifts the argument from a monetary focus to a claim that the postal service is undervalued. But it fails to recognize that those are 2 distinct types of values, so even if it is true that the postal service provides a valuable service the argument doesn't prove that it would be worth a price hike.
Hope that helps.
-Malila

[onlywinter]

Flaw #38 p. 237

What if answer C just said "does not say at what level the increase would be worthy of serious debate"? Would that be correct?

[Robert Carroll]

only,

That would not affect it. The argument does not need to explicitly state such a level in order to work. There may be not sharp cutoff, or five cents may be so far below any plausible level that it would be clearly below such a level even if the exact level is not known. The flaw here is that it's confusing the value of receiving the letter and the value of delivering the letter.

Robert Carroll

[sdb606]

I'm still having trouble seeing how C is correct. C says the author is equating:

• The value of the object delivered (what is the value of a personal letter from a friend? $0.01 for paper?

• The value of delivering the object (I understand this one)

The issue I see with the argument is the author is saying that regardless of how much junk mail I receive, that one time a year a friend sends me a personal letter justifies the contention that the postal rate is underpriced. But I don't see how C figures in to this. What does equating two values have to do with anything?

[Adam Tyson]

I think you're missing where the stimulus assigns a non-monetary value to receiving a letter from a friend, sdb606. Check the second sentence again, and you'll see that the author is placing a high sentimental value on getting that delivery. Junk mail has nothing to do with it because individual customers aren't buying stamps to mail junk, among other things).

The problem here is that the author is focused on how great it is to get that letter. Receiving that object has value. But the complaints are about the financial cost of sending that letter, and whether the post office is providing a level of service that justifies that cost. That's the confusion. Using the author's logic, the post office could charge an unlimited amount of money to deliver that letter, because "(f)ew experiences are more enjoyable than reading" it. That argument does nothing to address the complaints about inefficiency and incompetence.

Looked at another way, who cares how great it is to get that letter if the post office is so bad at their job that you never get it? The service has to be worth the price, and the argument never addresses that.

[sdb606]

Got it. I read "the value of delivering that object" to mean the sentimental value of receiving a letter when really it means the postal rate. The "value of the object" is the sentimental value.

In other words, there are two definitions of value: financial and sentimental, and the author is mistakenly equating them.

This is a great example of why I have a hard time with ambiguity. I could easily read "value of delivering that object" to mean either financial or sentimental. Whichever meaning I randomly select on first read will determine whether I get it right and how quickly. I only got this by POE.