Main content
Course: LSAT > Unit 1
Lesson 8: Logical Reasoning – Worked examples- Identify the conclusion | Worked example
- Identify an entailment | Worked example
- Strongly supported inferences | Worked example
- Working with disputes | Worked example
- Identify the technique | Worked example
- Identify the role | Worked example
- Identify the principle | Worked example
- Match the structure | Worked example
- Match principles | Worked example
- Identify a flaw | Worked example
- Match flaws | Worked example
- Necessary assumptions | Worked example
- Sufficient assumptions | Worked example
- Strengthen | Worked example
- Weaken | Worked example
- Helpful to know | Worked example
- Explain | Worked example
- Resolve a conflict | Worked example
© 2024 Khan AcademyTerms of usePrivacy PolicyCookie Notice
Identify a flaw | Worked example
Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a "Flaw" question on the logical reasoning section of the LSAT.
Want to join the conversation?
- Can we please get Annie to teach these lessons as well. This guy just rambles on...(8 votes)
- Maybe, just maybe, the guy could use his head and show all the answer choices on the screen. Thus, we could focus on the question, learn from the question, and not be focused on how ridiculous the setup looks.(7 votes)
- I am afraid the video didn't clearly explain why B isn't the right choice. Why B isn't?(6 votes)
- For The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider the possibility that questions, do you look for statements that counter the conclusion?
Statement: A shoddily constructed appliance can be made of high-quality parts
Conclusion: So Archway must use shoddy, substandard components in its clothes dryers(2 votes) - ANSWERS
(A) there is not a single known case of an Archway dryer starting a fire or electrocuting someone
(B) there are aspects of dryer construction that are more relevant to the quality of the finished product than those mentioned
(C) Archway's dryers consistently perform well and enjoy considerable customer loyalty
(D) a shoddily constructed appliance can be made of high-quality parts
(E) Archway's other product lines exhibit careful and safe assembly and high quality components(2 votes) - Type Of Question:
Flaw Question
Stimulus:
AA must be using substandard components in their dryers, since the dryers are of such poor quality
Prephrase:
Even if the parts are substandard, that doesn't guarantee that the end product is shoddy
Answer Choice:
D directly corresponds to the prephrased answer: the outcome may still persist without the said cause.
B may be an attractive answer, but it deals only with the premise.
Lesson:
Always remember to look at the whole argument.(1 vote)
Video transcript
- [Instructor] "Clothes
dryers manufactured "by Archway Appliances,
Inc. are of poor quality. "Crucial bolts are
missing and some sections "are assembled in the wrong order, "thereby creating a shock and fire hazard. "Concern for safety and quality
is conspicuously lacking. "So Archway must use shoddy,
substandard components "in its clothes dryers." So they're going after Archway Appliances. They're saying that they
are of poor quality, the clothes dryers in
particular are of poor quality. Crucial bolts are missing. Some sections are assembled
in the wrong order. Because of that, they create
a shock and fire hazard, shock and fire hazard. They're saying that this
company doesn't have concern for safety and quality. Concern is conspicuously lacking. And then they even make this conclusion, "So Archway must use shoddy,
substandard components "in its clothes dryers," which isn't a direct conclusion from all of what you said before. You could be missing some bolts but the ones that are there
could still be high quality. You could assemble things
that are components of high quality in the wrong order, but let's just keep reading
to see what they're asking us. "The argument is most
vulnerable to criticism "on the grounds that it fails to consider "the possibility that there's
not a single known case "of an Archway dryer starting a fire "or electrocuting someone." So that one does undermine
the "thereby creating "a shock and fire hazard." They're making the
statement that's saying, "Hey, these things are happening "which creates a shock and fire hazard," but if it's true that there's
not a single known case of an Archway dryer starting a fire or electrocuting someone and especially if you knew that there were a lot of them around, well, it would undermine
that one statement but doesn't undermine everything else. So I don't like this one that much. I'll kinda pseudo-cross it out. It undermines part of what they're saying but not the whole criticism. "There are aspects of dryer construction "that are more relevant to the quality "of the finished product
than those mentioned." Well, if that is true, it
does somewhat water down the argument, but if I'm thinking about buying a clothes dryer
from Archway Appliances, I'd still be quite worried
based on everything that this author is saying even if there are other
aspects of dryer construction that might be more relevant. So, I don't know, this one
doesn't feel that strong. "Archway's dryers
consistently perform well "and enjoy considerable customer loyalty. "Archway's dryers
consistently perform well "and enjoy considerable customer loyalty." This one is interesting because it does address that
they're of poor quality. If they were of poor quality, they're saying that if C was true, the dryers consistently perform well, that seems to contradict
the first statement. And then crucial bolts are missing and some sections are
assembled in the wrong order. If this is true, that Archway's dryers consistently perform well, that seems to undermine that as well. And there's high customer loyalty also seems to undermine the
beginning of this argument. But it doesn't undermine
this last statement. This last statement is, "So
Archway must use shoddy, "substandard components
in its clothes dryers." And this is really, the way it's set up, is kinda the conclusion of the argument. And so if it's not
undermining the conclusion of the argument, even
though this is close, it undermines a lot of what was said, I would rule this one out. Let's check out D. "A shoddily constructed
appliance can be made "of high-quality parts." So that is true. You could take a lot of high-quality parts and put them together but put them together in a bad way. And so this one would directly undermine what looks like the conclusion here. Because even if you accept everything that was said before, and my brain was feeling
that dissonance before, even if you accept
everything that was up here, you can badly put together things that are made of high quality. Even if all these other
statements are true, you can't make the conclusion that so therefore Archway must use shoddy, substandard components
in its clothes dryers. The way it's set up, this is
kind of the final conclusion and so this one does undermine that. "A shoddily constructed
appliance can be made "of high-quality parts." That is absolutely true. So now let's look at choice E. "Archway's other product
lines exhibit careful "and safe assembly and use
high-quality components." Well, that might make you
feel a little bit better about the company but
that still doesn't address these concerns about the
clothes dryers in particular. So this one, more than
any of the other ones, I think doesn't do much
to really water down the underlying argument. So I definitely like choice D that, look, this last conclusion, "So Archway must use "shoddy, substandard components
in its clothes dryers," that doesn't necessarily fall out of everything that was said before because a shoddily constructed appliance can be made of high-quality parts.