Flaw
Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The comm devices installed in our cars are not dangerously distracting to drivers.
Evidence: Drivers who want to use comm devices are going to use them anyway, and we've made those devices safer to use.
Answer Anticipation:
…. Okay … but what about drivers who DON'T want to use communications devices? This is a recurring type of LSAT argument. The author concludes something based on one or two slices of the population, without considering some missing slice of the population. (a lot of times it's a "false choice" between two extremes: people who love comm devices are safer and people who hate comm devices are safer. Thus, people are safer. --- we ask, "What about people who neither love nor hate comm devices?"). There's also a subsidiary conclusion drawn in the final sentence, and it contains the assumption "If easier to use, then safer to use". So we could also complain about that dubious move.
Correct Answer:
B
Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) I don't think the author is applying any general principle (although she's assuming a general principle of "if it's easier, then it's safer"). But even if we call her assumption a principle, she is applying it to an APPLICABLE situation.
(B) Well …. Maybe? The substantive point was that these comm devices were DISTRACTING to drivers. The author only referred to drivers who want comm devices and only argued that their devices are EASIER TO USE. So, technically, the author never discussed whether or not they are a distraction. We could probably pick this.
(C) Was there conditional logic in the argument? No. So we shouldn't pick the conditional logic flaw.
(D) Did the author assume this? No, it's far too extreme. ALL comm devides are the SAME in terms of distraction? In the sense that the author failed to address whether their devices are less dangerous in respect to driver distraction, maybe it feels like she's assuming that all comm devices are the same in that regard. But (B) would still be a more direct / safer way of addressing the failure to address distraction.
(E) I don't think it's fair to say the author's premises restate the conclusion (Our devices aren't dangerous because they're safe). She brings up the ideas that drivers would use comm devices even if those weren't installed and that their devices are easier to use than other devices. Since there are unique ideas in the evidence, it's hard to call it circular.
Takeaway/Pattern: Ugh … that was miserable. I'll be honest -- for most of these explanations, I don't even check the answer key to see if I'm right. I'm (sadly) THAT familiar with LSAT and that confident in most of my answers. For this one, I typed up the explanation in favor of (B) and had 50/50 expectations I was gonna be wrong and have to justify a different answer. It's just one of those really hard Flaw questions in which there are a number of valid complaints we could have with the argument. The test writers don't deliver on either of those possible objections, and so we have to think flexibly and primarily get to the answer by finding ways of killing all the other answers. One hopefully easier way to see the Flaw that LSAT wanted to address with (B) is this: Critics are saying "the comm devices in automobiles are dangerous!" (absolute claim). The author is saying "our comm devices are less dangerous than the comm devices many drivers would be using otherwise" (relative claim). So add Relative vs. Absolute to the list of possible ways we could have objected to this argument.
#officialexplanation