Q15 - Columnist: Many car manufacturers trumpet

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: Manufacturers probably inflate their fuel economy numbers (i.e. how many miles per gallon you're supposed to get under normal driving conditions)
Evidence: For all three cars I've owned, I've never gotten the fuel economy advertised.

Answer Anticipation:
If we accepted that auto manufacturers' fuel economy numbers were INCORRECT, then we could argue with the author's speculative explanation that the reason for incorrect numbers is that auto manufacturers are inflating them. We could consider alternative explanations for why fuel economy numbers are inaccurate.

However, there's no need for us to accept that the fuel economy numbers are incorrect. Maybe it's just that this dude drives his car under less-than-ideal fuel economy conditions. Maybe he's in a lot of traffic, pulling freight up the hill, accelerating as fast as he can from red lights, etc. This guy failed to establish that he drives under normal driving conditions.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Yes, although I would never have picked this on a first pass. The sample size is only 3 cars, which is a very small sample.

(B) The author didn't need to assume this extreme claim, that driving conditions are the SAME in EVERY region.

(C) The author doesn't overlook this possibility; he seems to directly confront the possibility that the cited numbers are biased and unreliable.

(D) There is no discussion of "minimum fuel efficiency standards", so the author didn't need to assume anything about this.

(E) This is the famous flaw called Equivocation. The author uses fuel economy in the same sense both times.

Takeaway/Pattern: For me, this was a good example of "I had a valid reaction to the argument, but it wasn't the reaction LSAT was rewarding here". We have to stay flexible when we evaluate answers, especially in the Hot Zone of LR, because often they are coming at the argument from a different angle from the one we considered. I always ask myself for each Flaw answer choice, "1. Is this accurate? (in this case, B/C/D/E all failed this first check) and 2. Does this really matter to the logical move the author made?"

#officialexplanation

[AyakiK696]

Would answer choice B be correct if it said "presumes that the driver isn't driving under atypical driving conditions"?

[ohthatpatrick]

For sure.

When I was having reactions such as these in the ANSWER ANTICIPATION section ...

However, there's no need for us to accept that the fuel economy numbers are incorrect. Maybe it's just that this dude drives his car under less-than-ideal fuel economy conditions. Maybe he's in a lot of traffic, pulling freight up the hill, accelerating as fast as he can from red lights, etc. This guy failed to establish that he drives under normal driving conditions.

... I was saying "well ... we're certainly assuming that he was driving under normal conditions".

[HadisA912]

Hi,

I find A quite unrealistic:

There are millions of cars produced by machines which are nearly similar. The likelihood that 3 cars from manufacturers all have inflated fuel economy seems very far to me.

I somehow can't get away from B, maybe you could help me. The statement says:

3 cars underdelivered on the fuel economy promise -> FE is inflated by manufacturer

Now, preassuming B, I get:

3 cars underdelivered on the fuel economy promise AND driving conditions are the same everywhere -> FE is inflated

It is easier for the Columnist to get to this flawed argument now, because he protects himself at least against criticism that he drove in disadvantegous areas for fuel economy.

So it's likely to me that he might have preassumed that rather than A, please help

[wendyy601]

Hi,

I find A quite unrealistic:

There are millions of cars produced by machines which are nearly similar. The likelihood that 3 cars from manufacturers all have inflated fuel economy seems very far to me.

I initially also had this question but then realized the stimulus says "many manufacturers," so we probably need more cars to reject the manufacturers' claim.

The problem of (B) is that the columnist doesn't need to assume that the conditions are the same in "every" geological region to arrive at the conclusion.