If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

Main content

Identify a flaw | Worked example

Watch a demonstration of one way to approach a "Flaw" question on the logical reasoning section of the LSAT.

Want to join the conversation?

  • blobby green style avatar for user LSATprep12
    Can we please get Annie to teach these lessons as well. This guy just rambles on...
    (8 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user Kai Burley
    ANSWERS

    (A) there is not a single known case of an Archway dryer starting a fire or electrocuting someone

    (B) there are aspects of dryer construction that are more relevant to the quality of the finished product than those mentioned

    (C) Archway's dryers consistently perform well and enjoy considerable customer loyalty

    (D) a shoddily constructed appliance can be made of high-quality parts

    (E) Archway's other product lines exhibit careful and safe assembly and high quality components
    (8 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user Marc Ashford
    Maybe, just maybe, the guy could use his head and show all the answer choices on the screen. Thus, we could focus on the question, learn from the question, and not be focused on how ridiculous the setup looks.
    (7 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • male robot johnny style avatar for user justintsao86
    I am afraid the video didn't clearly explain why B isn't the right choice. Why B isn't?
    (6 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user a a
    For The argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it fails to consider the possibility that questions, do you look for statements that counter the conclusion?

    Statement: A shoddily constructed appliance can be made of high-quality parts

    Conclusion: So Archway must use shoddy, substandard components in its clothes dryers
    (2 votes)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user
  • blobby green style avatar for user A A
    Type Of Question:
    Flaw Question

    Stimulus:
    AA must be using substandard components in their dryers, since the dryers are of such poor quality

    Prephrase:
    Even if the parts are substandard, that doesn't guarantee that the end product is shoddy

    Answer Choice:
    D directly corresponds to the prephrased answer: the outcome may still persist without the said cause.
    B may be an attractive answer, but it deals only with the premise.

    Lesson:
    Always remember to look at the whole argument.
    (1 vote)
    Default Khan Academy avatar avatar for user

Video transcript

- [Instructor] "Clothes dryers manufactured "by Archway Appliances, Inc. are of poor quality. "Crucial bolts are missing and some sections "are assembled in the wrong order, "thereby creating a shock and fire hazard. "Concern for safety and quality is conspicuously lacking. "So Archway must use shoddy, substandard components "in its clothes dryers." So they're going after Archway Appliances. They're saying that they are of poor quality, the clothes dryers in particular are of poor quality. Crucial bolts are missing. Some sections are assembled in the wrong order. Because of that, they create a shock and fire hazard, shock and fire hazard. They're saying that this company doesn't have concern for safety and quality. Concern is conspicuously lacking. And then they even make this conclusion, "So Archway must use shoddy, substandard components "in its clothes dryers," which isn't a direct conclusion from all of what you said before. You could be missing some bolts but the ones that are there could still be high quality. You could assemble things that are components of high quality in the wrong order, but let's just keep reading to see what they're asking us. "The argument is most vulnerable to criticism "on the grounds that it fails to consider "the possibility that there's not a single known case "of an Archway dryer starting a fire "or electrocuting someone." So that one does undermine the "thereby creating "a shock and fire hazard." They're making the statement that's saying, "Hey, these things are happening "which creates a shock and fire hazard," but if it's true that there's not a single known case of an Archway dryer starting a fire or electrocuting someone and especially if you knew that there were a lot of them around, well, it would undermine that one statement but doesn't undermine everything else. So I don't like this one that much. I'll kinda pseudo-cross it out. It undermines part of what they're saying but not the whole criticism. "There are aspects of dryer construction "that are more relevant to the quality "of the finished product than those mentioned." Well, if that is true, it does somewhat water down the argument, but if I'm thinking about buying a clothes dryer from Archway Appliances, I'd still be quite worried based on everything that this author is saying even if there are other aspects of dryer construction that might be more relevant. So, I don't know, this one doesn't feel that strong. "Archway's dryers consistently perform well "and enjoy considerable customer loyalty. "Archway's dryers consistently perform well "and enjoy considerable customer loyalty." This one is interesting because it does address that they're of poor quality. If they were of poor quality, they're saying that if C was true, the dryers consistently perform well, that seems to contradict the first statement. And then crucial bolts are missing and some sections are assembled in the wrong order. If this is true, that Archway's dryers consistently perform well, that seems to undermine that as well. And there's high customer loyalty also seems to undermine the beginning of this argument. But it doesn't undermine this last statement. This last statement is, "So Archway must use shoddy, "substandard components in its clothes dryers." And this is really, the way it's set up, is kinda the conclusion of the argument. And so if it's not undermining the conclusion of the argument, even though this is close, it undermines a lot of what was said, I would rule this one out. Let's check out D. "A shoddily constructed appliance can be made "of high-quality parts." So that is true. You could take a lot of high-quality parts and put them together but put them together in a bad way. And so this one would directly undermine what looks like the conclusion here. Because even if you accept everything that was said before, and my brain was feeling that dissonance before, even if you accept everything that was up here, you can badly put together things that are made of high quality. Even if all these other statements are true, you can't make the conclusion that so therefore Archway must use shoddy, substandard components in its clothes dryers. The way it's set up, this is kind of the final conclusion and so this one does undermine that. "A shoddily constructed appliance can be made "of high-quality parts." That is absolutely true. So now let's look at choice E. "Archway's other product lines exhibit careful "and safe assembly and use high-quality components." Well, that might make you feel a little bit better about the company but that still doesn't address these concerns about the clothes dryers in particular. So this one, more than any of the other ones, I think doesn't do much to really water down the underlying argument. So I definitely like choice D that, look, this last conclusion, "So Archway must use "shoddy, substandard components in its clothes dryers," that doesn't necessarily fall out of everything that was said before because a shoddily constructed appliance can be made of high-quality parts.