#16 - Automobile executive: Our critics say that the

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[lathlee]

This flaw question, i don't get how the credited answer b), which is saying general lack of relevant evidence flaw exists in question stem, but critics's argument of why communications devices are dangerously distracting in first place either. on top of that, question stem contains some level of evidence, easier to use, for the conclusion, not as dangerous as other communication device.

[Adam Tyson]

The flaw here is that the auto exec gives evidence that the devices in their cars are LESS dangerous than other devices that drivers will use anyway, but gives no evidence that they are NOT dangerous. Responding to an absolute claim - they are dangerous - with a relative premise - they are less dangerous than something else - fails to address the original claim. Imagine an analogy:

"You say that my tuna casserole tastes terrible, but you are wrong, because it tastes better than my mother's tuna casserole."

Did I offer ANY relevant evidence that you are wrong? I don't think so, not without knowing whether my mother's casserole is good.

An important question here to push back to you, lathlee - which answer did you think was better? Don't just look for a "good" answer, but compare the answers to each other and pick the best one. The best answer may not match your prephrase, but it should still be better than the other four, and that is all that matters in the end.

[LSAT4Life]

Thanks for your explanation, Adam. To further understand this argument, is this argument essentially an absolute vs relative (i.e., safe vs. safer issue)?

The issue is that the communication device is dangerously distracting so saying that the executive's device is safer doesn't conclude anything about the absolute term (i.e., safeness of the device)? I think this is essentially what Adam's comment is but wanted to confirm.

[atierney]

Hello LSAT4Life,

For this question, I agree with your assessment of Adam's point and its overall correctness. The point is that the particular devices within are distracting drivers, and pointing the figure at other devices (or general use of devices) is not particularly relevant against the claim being made. In so doing, the argument definitely fails to address the substantive point of the criticism it is responding to, mainly whether the installed communication devices installed on the automobiles are distracting (the absolute claim).

Let me know if you have further questions on this.

[lemonade42]

Is "Drivers who want to use communication devices are going to use them regardless" a general principle?
It seems broad but also specific to at the same time...
So is (A) wrong because there is a general principle but it DOES apply
or is it wrong because there is no general principle used in the first place?

[Chandler H]

Is "Drivers who want to use communication devices are going to use them regardless" a general principle?
It seems broad but also specific to at the same time...
So is (A) wrong because there is a general principle but it DOES apply
or is it wrong because there is no general principle used in the first place?

Hi lemonade42,

Good question! I think "Drivers who want to use communication devices are going to use them regardless" is indeed a bit too specific to be a general principle. It's more like an assertion that the automobile executive is making (similar to "Our devices are easier for drivers to use"). So (A) is wrong because there's not really a general principle at play here.

[Law123]

Hello,

Was wondering why the answer C is incorrect. is the conclusion not --> our devices are easier to use so our cars are safer. the executive uses that the devices are easier to prove the cars are safer. So he's trying to make easy a sufficient indicator for safe?

Thanks

[Adam Tyson]

Nothing conditional is happening in this stimulus, Law123, so an answer that describes a conditional flaw won't be correct.

Digging a little deeper into that answer, try answering this question: what condition is necessary to establish the conclusion? The conclusion is that the critics are wrong. What is it that the author thinks is 100% required if the critics are wrong? I don't see anything that the author thinks is necessary for that to be the case. There is no element of "if they are wrong, then this other thing must be true." They just think the fact that the devices are easier and safer than some alternatives is sufficient to prove that they are not dangerously distracting.

The argument is not based on treating something necessary as it it's sufficient; it's based on treating something that is safer (a relative claim) as if it is safe (an absolute claim). That means they are essentially ignoring the claim that the devices are dangerous, which is what makes answer B such a good answer.

[Lawdream808]

Hi, I chose E on this one and I was hoping someone could explain why that answer is incorrect. I see the logic in B being correct, but don’t see why E is not just as correct.

Answer E - is based on premises that presume the truth of the argument’s conclusion.

My thinking was that the last sentence of the stimulus presents both a Premise (Our devices are easier for drivers to use) and Conclusion (hence, they are safer), and that because he/she does not provide any evidence to support the premise, the truth of his/her conclusion is in fact “presumed”.

Is my answer choice wrong because:
1. My assessment on the flaw in the executive’s argument is incorrect
OR
2. The executive’s argument only presents a single premise, rather than premises.
OR
3. Something else


One last question…is this a type of answer that could and has actually been used on an LSAT exam as a correct answer? It almost seems to be a generic specious statement that seems like it could resolve an LR flaw, but itself is flawed and is never actually used as a right answer on an exam, just a trap.

Thanks!