Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Camille thinks water-saving faucets are a scam because people just use them longer, but Rebecca says her bills dropped after getting one, so the manufacturers must be telling the truth.

Conclusion: The claims made by manufacturers of water-saving faucets regarding money savings are not exaggerated.

Reasoning: Even though the user's showers now last longer, their water bills have decreased since they installed one of these faucets.

Analysis: Rebecca is guilty of making a broad generalization based on a single data point: herself. She assumes that because she personally saved money, the manufacturers' general claims are validated for everyone. Furthermore, she takes for granted that the lower bills were caused specifically by the faucet rather than other changes in her household's water usage habits.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

15.

The reasoning in Rebecca's argument is questionable in that she takes for granted that

Correct Answer
B
B states the needed link. If Rebecca didn’t save as much as claimed, then her lower bills wouldn’t show the claims aren’t exaggerated. With B, her case actually bears on the accuracy of the claims.
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
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep