#16 - Automobile executive: Our critics say that the

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[lathlee]

This flaw question, i don't get how the credited answer b), which is saying general lack of relevant evidence flaw exists in question stem, but critics's argument of why communications devices are dangerously distracting in first place either. on top of that, question stem contains some level of evidence, easier to use, for the conclusion, not as dangerous as other communication device.

[Adam Tyson]

The flaw here is that the auto exec gives evidence that the devices in their cars are LESS dangerous than other devices that drivers will use anyway, but gives no evidence that they are NOT dangerous. Responding to an absolute claim - they are dangerous - with a relative premise - they are less dangerous than something else - fails to address the original claim. Imagine an analogy:

"You say that my tuna casserole tastes terrible, but you are wrong, because it tastes better than my mother's tuna casserole."

Did I offer ANY relevant evidence that you are wrong? I don't think so, not without knowing whether my mother's casserole is good.

An important question here to push back to you, lathlee - which answer did you think was better? Don't just look for a "good" answer, but compare the answers to each other and pick the best one. The best answer may not match your prephrase, but it should still be better than the other four, and that is all that matters in the end.

[LSAT4Life]

Thanks for your explanation, Adam. To further understand this argument, is this argument essentially an absolute vs relative (i.e., safe vs. safer issue)?

The issue is that the communication device is dangerously distracting so saying that the executive's device is safer doesn't conclude anything about the absolute term (i.e., safeness of the device)? I think this is essentially what Adam's comment is but wanted to confirm.

[atierney]

Hello LSAT4Life,

For this question, I agree with your assessment of Adam's point and its overall correctness. The point is that the particular devices within are distracting drivers, and pointing the figure at other devices (or general use of devices) is not particularly relevant against the claim being made. In so doing, the argument definitely fails to address the substantive point of the criticism it is responding to, mainly whether the installed communication devices installed on the automobiles are distracting (the absolute claim).

Let me know if you have further questions on this.