Q20 - Advertisement: In a recent survey

[jasleenkchahal]

Hi,

Could someone please explain why B is wrong and why E is right?

I interpreted B as -->the NEW policyholders pay just as much, or more, than the OLD policyholders. And if the new guys are saving $250 a year, then everyone at Popelka must be saving at least that much.

Is E right because it's addressing the unrepresentative sample? If the sample is only addressing NEW policyholders, you don't really know if maybe there's a promotion going on for a limited time only...and maybe it only lasts a few months or something?

Confusedd!! Thanks in advance!

[smehvary89]

This is my first post. I will attempt to not mess up and hope my thinking is correct.

The stimulus states that ALL NEW P policyholders saved on average $250 a year from switching their auto insurance to P. Then it concludes that most people who make the switch could save hundreds from switching to P as well.

To me E is correct because it shows that the stimulus is flawed in that it leaves open the possibility that there could have been a FEW that saved hundreds to thousands of dollars while the MANY could be saving a much substantially lower amount. So the average is brought up because of the FEW although MOST people aren’t saving that much.

B is wrong because he is talking about how NEW policyholders saved money that made the switch and shows that others that make the switch could have the same benefit. It doesn’t matter if the NEW policyholders pay more or less than the OLDER ones in P because they didn’t make the switch and are not relevant.

[christine.defenbaugh]

This is a tough question jasleenkchahal!

Let's break it down from the top. As with any Flaw question, we want to start by distilling the core:

PREMISE
Group that switched from other companies to Popelka saved hundreds of dollars on average by switching.
CONCLUSION
Most people at other companies now could save hundreds of dollars by switching to Popelka.

Notice the disconnect between the two groups the premise and the conclusion are each talking about: the premise gives information about the group that has already switched. The conclusion gives information about the group that has not switched.

Who's to say these two groups remotely resemble one another?! What if all the people who were going to save any money at all by switching already did so, and the only people left at other companies are people who wouldn't save a dime? If that were true, this conclusion would be blown away!

The argument assumes that the two groups resemble each other in savings composition. In other words, it doesn't address the possibility that that might not be true - that the big savers may be way more common in the group that's already switched. This matches up with (E) precisely.

smehvary89, you've got some really interesting thoughts here! What you bring up is absolutely a flaw in the argument. Even if the groups perfectly resembled each other, if the average is thrown off by a few people in each group who could save A MILLION DOLLARS, then we wouldn't be able to reach the conclusion that most people could save hundreds by switching.

However, that's not actually what (E) says! You've correctly identified a totally separate flaw in the argument: one that the LSAT could have turned into a correct answer choice, but chose not to. If you weren't careful, (A) might have looked tempting, given your line of thought.

While you went for the correct answer anyway, there's a lesson here: even if you've accurately pre-identified a flaw in the argument, be prepared for your perfect answer choice to simply not be present. There may be a separate flaw that you've overlooked!


Not the Problem
(A) Some Popelka switchers not saving doesn't destroy the conclusion, since we only conclude that most new switchers could save, not all of them.
(B) People who have been with Popelka a long time aren't relevant to the argument core. The two groups the core is about are 1) recent Popelka switchers and 2) people who have not yet switched. Where old Popelka customers fit in doesn't matter.
(C) The conclusion does not claim that switching to Popelka is the cheapest option out there - only that switching would save people money. If some other new company was an even better switch, this doesn't damage the conclusion.
(D) If a bunch of Popelka switchers underestimated their savings, that would mean they actually saved MORE than $250 on average - that would actually help the conclusion out, not damage it! What would be bad is if they had overestimated.


Remember, always start with the argument core! Argument can have (and often do have) more than one fatal flaw. The correct answer could be about any, so don't be married to the first gap or flaw that you notice!

I hope this helps clear things up a bit!

[shirleyx]

Hello people,

so, doing all the good stuff.

[most ppl with insurance with other companies could save $$ by switching to ours]
because...
-policy holders reported saving an avg ~$250 when switching.

the flaw: not sure buy something about "most people" getting equated with "policy holders"...

(A) not an issue at all
(B) the period of time for holding insurance policies is not an issue
(C) I do not care about other auto insurances-- not part of the argument -- maybe strengthen or something..
(D) "underestimated" -- didn't even think of that until now, and does not seem to be a flaw
(E) technically this 'should' be correct, as it is the last one standing...

confirming (E) just to be sure

(E) gets on the falsely equating "most people" with "policy holders".. the language used in this answer choice is rather fancy, unfortunately... In short, the answer choice says that the people who could save are the new policy holders....... THUS equating "most people" with "policy holders"

[VickX462]

This is my first post so I hope I don't mess up.

I think the flaw of the question could be described as the following: average (stated in the premise) ≠ most (stated in the conclusion). Consider this: one person in the study saved $1,000,000 by switching to Popelka, while the rest saved $10 for the switch, the average amount of saving could be $250.

Here, it is evident that while someone could save $250 by switching to Popelka, most people who switch may not be getting the $250 saving.

[BarryM800]

For the credited response to be the correct answer choice, it would necessarily require an assumption that some car owners can benefit from switching to Popelka while others cannot, and I just wonder what could that possibly be that the ground is not leveled? The only thing I can think of is that each situation can be different. If that's the case, that would necessarily mean that the policy terms could be specific to different policyholders. Thus, the comparison of policy premium is meaningless without considering specific coverages. But the way the argument is presented in the stimulus would indicate that "with the same coverage" those who newly switched to Popelka have saved, on average, $250 a year. How do we reconcile this issue, as otherwise we would be comparing apples with oranges. Any thoughts? Thanks!

[Misti Duvall]

Hi Barry,

I get where you're going, but I think there's a much easier way to approach this question. See Christine's explanation above (in blue/green) for an excellent breakdown.

Also be careful about being too strict with your analysis and reading in information that's not there. The stimulus doesn't say anything about "with the same coverage." And it doesn't necessarily have to be true that some people can "benefit" while others cannot. (I put benefit in quotes because the stimulus just talks about saving money, and are could be lots of ways to benefit.) The people who switch could have terrible coverage and still save money, so the specifics of their coverage are not relevant.

Hope this helps!