Flawed ReasoningDiff: Easy
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: A consumer advocate claims a big computer virus scare was a scam because not many people actually lost data, while the companies selling the fix made a lot of money.
Conclusion: The warning about the computer virus was merely a tactic to increase sales rather than a genuine concern.
Reasoning: Because only a small number of damage cases were reported globally despite widespread warnings, and because antivirus software sales were high, the advocate concludes the threat was fraudulent.
Analysis: The advocate's argument suffers from a classic oversight regarding cause and effect. They assume that because the 'fire' (the damage) was small, the 'smoke' (the warning) must have been fake. However, it is entirely possible that the high sales of antivirus programs are exactly what prevented the virus from causing more damage. Look for an answer that points out the advocate fails to consider that the preventative measures might have actually worked. It's a bit like saying a vaccine was a fraud because nobody got sick after taking it.
Conclusion: The warning about the computer virus was merely a tactic to increase sales rather than a genuine concern.
Reasoning: Because only a small number of damage cases were reported globally despite widespread warnings, and because antivirus software sales were high, the advocate concludes the threat was fraudulent.
Analysis: The advocate's argument suffers from a classic oversight regarding cause and effect. They assume that because the 'fire' (the damage) was small, the 'smoke' (the warning) must have been fake. However, it is entirely possible that the high sales of antivirus programs are exactly what prevented the virus from causing more damage. Look for an answer that points out the advocate fails to consider that the preventative measures might have actually worked. It's a bit like saying a vaccine was a fraud because nobody got sick after taking it.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage9.The reasoning in the consumer advocate's argument is flawed because this argument
Correct Answer
E
E is correct because it points out the key oversight: if protective steps taken in response to the warning actually worked, then the low number of damage reports does not show the threat was a fraud. That alternative explanation undercuts the argument’s leap from "few incidents" to "the warning was only a sales ploy."
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal