LSAT Explanation PT 41, S3, Q8: Travel writer: A vacationer should choose

LSAT Question Stem

The flawed reasoning in the travel writer's argument is most similar to that in which one of the following arguments? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Parallel Flaw, which means we need to find an answer choice that contains a similar flawed reasoning as the one in the passage.

In the passage, the travel writer argues that a vacationer should choose an airline that has had an accident in the past 5 years, because studies show that the average airline has 1 accident every 5 years. The writer mistakenly assumes that since the average is 1 accident in 5 years, an airline with no accidents in the past 5 years is due for a crash. This is a flawed reasoning because the average occurrence does not dictate when an accident will happen.

To help illustrate this, think about flipping a coin. If you flip a coin 10 times and it lands heads up each time, the odds of the next flip landing heads up are still 50/50. Each new flip is subject to the overall average, and the previous flips do not affect the outcome of the next flip.

Now let's go through the answer choices and find the one that contains a similar flawed reasoning:

a) This answer choice does not reflect the logical flaw found in the passage. Instead of dealing with statistical conclusions based on past performance, this answer choice concerns whether or not a coin is "fair."

b) This is the correct answer choice. Like the author in the passage, the author of this answer choice mistakenly assumes that a baboon's past poor performance means greater chances of future positive performance. This is incorrect, as the average likelihood of ascending to dominance is not affected by the baboon's past performance.

c) This answer choice reflects a different type of logical flaw: the odds of the "average resident" getting into a traffic accident are not necessarily equal to the odds for any given individual. Since Marty doesn't drive and may spend less time in cars than the "average citizen," the conclusion here is flawed, but in a different way from the passage author's conclusion.

d) The reasoning in this answer choice is valid, so this answer cannot possibly parallel the flawed reasoning found in the passage.

e) The flaw here is the presumption that the grandmaster's actions in this tournament will be unwavering, maintaining a perfect 90% likelihood of the referenced response. This logic is not valid, but because it is not the same type of flawed reasoning found in the passage, this answer choice is incorrect.

In conclusion, the correct answer is (B) because it contains a similar flawed reasoning as the one in the passage: mistakenly assuming that past performance affects the likelihood of future events based on an average occurrence.