Q10 - Advertisement: VIVVY, a video-based foreign language..

[Carlystern]

Can someone explain how to arrive at the correct answer for this question?

[rinagoldfield]

This is a "match-the-flawed-reasoning" question. We should start by outlining the logic of the original argument, look for the flaw, and then look for an argument in the answer choices with a similar flaw.

A, M, and E used VIVVY and are successful university students

Therefore....

Anyone who uses VIVVY will become a successful university student.

What’s the flaw? The author assumes a couple of things.

First, s/he assumes a causal relationship between VIVVY and academic success. S/he overlooks the possibility that it’s a mere coincidence that A, M, and E used VIVVY and became successful.

Second, s/he assumes that what’s true for a few people is true for everyone. Even if VIVVY created A, M, and E’s university success, who’s to say that it would create similar success for other people?

These are the flaws we want to match in the answer choices.

(A) is a match! The author overlooks that possibility that charm-carrying and lottery-winning are coincidentally aligned here. S/he also assumes that what’s true for a few (A, F, and S) will be true for anyone.

(B), (C), (D), and (E) fail to conclude anything about what "anyone" (or "everyone" or "you") might expect. They don’t match the second flaw, and are therefore incorrect.

[Lsat 123]

Thanx! but is there a small flaw in "A" that isn't in in the ad. In answer choice A it doesn't state that they wore good luck charms before they won the lottery. Is that true?

[VendelaG465]

I was tempted to pick A at first but then fell for choice D. I don't see why that answer couldn't work? I was hooked on the "If you routinely exceed the speed limit, you can expect to get a speeding ticket eventually..."

[JohnZ880]

I was tempted to pick A at first but then fell for choice D. I don't see why that answer couldn't work? I was hooked on the "If you routinely exceed the speed limit, you can expect to get a speeding ticket eventually..."

Speeding and getting a speeding ticket are not coincidental, they're absolutely related. Secondly, while (d) is a flawed argument, it's not flawed in the same way that the stimulus is. (D) makes a sufficient/necessary mistake, whereas the stimulus and A are about correlation/causation.

Logic of (D):

C: K, N, and M routinely drive faster than the speed limit... how do we know this?
(1) Routinely exceed speed limit ---> ticket
(2) K, N, and M have gotten tickets.

Classic illegal reversal, which isn't the flaw committed in the stimulus.