hard · LSAT
In a study of ten luxury-car owners, eight reported that they feel safer in vehicles with leather interiors than in those with fabric interiors. Therefore, leather interiors are a more effective safety feature than fabric ones. A prominent cardiologist endorsed the finding, observing that "a sense of security is vital for heart health."
The reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism because it:
- Generalizes from a sample too small and skewed to be representative, and backs the claim with an authority whose field does not establish it.
- Takes the earlier of two events to be the cause of the later one, and disregards available counter-evidence.
- Assumes a property of one luxury car must hold for all luxury cars, and ignores the cost of the safety features.
- Treats a condition necessary for safety as though it were sufficient, and trades on two different senses of the word 'safe.'
- Confuses how secure people feel with how safe they actually are, and relies on testimony from interested parties.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- The author's use of the word "demonstrates" most strongly suggests that the author's attit
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?