LSAT Explanation PT 40, S3, Q23: A television manufacturing plant has a

LSAT Question Stem

The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Flaw, which asks us to identify a vulnerability in the argument.

Let's first summarize and analyze the argument in the passage. The passage presents the following information:

1. A television manufacturing plant has a total of 1,000 workers (premise).

2. On average, 10 workers are absent on any given day (premise).

3. When exactly 10 workers are absent, the plant produces televisions at its normal rate (premise).

4. Therefore, the plant could fire 10 workers without any loss in production (conclusion).

The argument's structure is based on the premises that the plant can function at its normal rate with 10 workers absent and that this average absentee rate is consistent.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Would the absentee rate change if 10 workers were fired?"

Now, let's go through the answer choices:

a) The argument doesn't ignore this possibility, but it's not necessary for the argument's conclusion. If anything, this would strengthen the conclusion rather than expose a vulnerability.

b) This is the correct answer choice. The argument assumes that the absentee rate would remain the same after firing 10 workers, which is not necessarily true. If the absentee rate didn't drop, and about 10 people were still absent after the firings, we can't determine whether a loss of productivity would occur.

c) The author doesn't presume this. Instead, they conclude that firing 10 workers would have no impact on productivity rates, based on the fact that losing 10 workers on any given day doesn't affect productivity.

d) This is not the flaw in the argument. The vulnerability lies in the author's misunderstanding of percentages and statistics, not in overlooking the importance of specific workers.

e) The author doesn't take this for granted. They draw the conclusion from the fact that losing 10 workers on any given day doesn't result in a loss of productivity.