LSAT 140 – Section 3 – Question 01

LSAT 140 - Section 3 - Question 01

December 2013

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 0:35

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT140 S3 Q01
+LR
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Net Effect +NetEff
Part v. Whole +PvW
A
0%
150
B
0%
149
C
98%
165
D
1%
154
E
0%
146
122
130
138
 +Easiest 149.74 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.


Video of JY doing this

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Advertisement: GreenBank gives all of its customers unlimited free automatic teller machine (ATM) use. TekBank charges 25 cents for each ATM transaction. So, clearly, it costs more to bank at TekBank than at GreenBank.

Summarize Argument
The ad concludes that it costs more to bank at TekBank than at GreenBank. It supports this by noting that ATM transactions cost more at TekBank than at GreenBank.

Identify and Describe Flaw
This is the part to whole flaw, where the argument assumes that something true about one part of a whole must be true about the entire whole.

Here, the ad assumes that banking at TekBank costs more just because ATM use at TekBank costs more. However, other factors, like getting a loan or opening an account, might actually make TekBank cheaper than GreenBank.

A
bases a recommendation solely on economic factors without considering whether other factors are more important
The ad actually never makes a recommendation about which bank someone should use. It just concludes that one bank is more expensive than the other.
B
presents claims that are irrelevant to the issue under discussion in order to divert attention away from that issue
The cost of ATM use at each bank is relevant to the conclusion about which bank is more expensive. It’s just not sufficient evidence to conclude that TekBank is more expensive.
C
draws a conclusion about the overall cost of a service solely on the basis of a claim about the cost of one component of that service
The ad concludes that the overall cost of banking with TekBank is higher based solely on the claim that the cost of ATM use with TekBank is higher. But there might be other factors and fees that make GreenBank more expensive overall.
D
concludes that a component of a service must have a property that the service as a whole possesses
This is the opposite of the ad’s flaw. Instead of (D), the ad concludes that the service as a whole must have a property that one component of the service possesses.
E
concludes that a claim must be false because of the mere absence of evidence in its favor
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of assuming that a conclusion is false simply because its support is weak. The ad doesn’t make this mistake. In fact, it’s not concluding that any claim is false in the first place.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 140 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply