PT 47, S3, Q8: Flaw
Wow. What a broad conclusion. So we're looking at causation here, and a terrible analysis of it. As usual, we have correlation supporting causation, this is easily one of LSAT's most often used structures.
Core: The model of car one drives greatly affects the chances that one's car will be stolen
Why?
(p1) The model stolen the most back home last year was the same as the year before.
There are a number of problems here. But my prephrase would hit on the usual correct answer which would go something along the lines of: The argument fails to address the possibility that other factors caused the car to be stolen most often." For example, what if all of the cars of this model are located in a city with an awful crime rate, or what if all of the cars of this model don't lock? The possibilities are endless. Let's move to the answers:
A: Huh, that's not what we are looking for, but it does get at a gap. The argument is about the number of cars stolen. Well this answer gets at the issue that what if there's not many other cars? This establishes a reason for the core not to be drawn from the premises. It wasn't the model of the car, just the availability of it.
B: So what. This doesn't preclude the possibility of the core being drawn.
C: Same as B. If anything this is another reason that the model affects the chances that one's car will be stolen.
D: God no.
E: Same as D.
melmoththewanderer wrote:Quick LR question.
All of A through D offer alternate explanations. Is the flaw here that the argument makes a generalization on the basis of information in one country?
To answer your question, no that's not really the flaw. Theoretically it could be, but I think the language in the stimulus would have to be shifted so as to allow that to be true. Furthermore, evidence from a country, such as the type given in the stimulus, is sufficient to allow the conclusion to make a generalization, just because the sample size is so large. The flaw is really that the argument doesn't consider other options which may deny the alleged causal explanation.