Question

People who accuse the postal service of incompetence and inefficiency while complaining of the proposed five-cent increase in postal rates do not know a bargain when they see one. Few experiences are more enjoyable than reading a personal letter from a friend. Viewed in this way, postal service is so underpriced that a five-cent increase is unworthy of serious debate. The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument (A) suggests that the postal service is both competent and efficient, but does not establish how competence and efficiency should be measured (B) claims that the proposed increase is insignificant but does not say at what level the increase would be worthy of serious debate (C) confuses the value of the object delivered with the value of delivering that object (D) appeals to an outside authority for support of a premise that should be established by argument (E) fails to establish whether or not the critics of the postal service are employees of the postal service

Short answer

(C) confuses the value of the object delivered with the value of delivering that object.

Step-by-step solution

Understanding the Argument

The argument claims that those who complain about the postal service's proposed rate increase do not appreciate a good deal, suggesting that postal service is so valuable that the increase is trivial.

Identifying the Argument's Flaw

To determine the flaw, assess where the argument's reasoning has gaps. The error arises when the argument equates the enjoyment of a received letter (the content) with the service itself (delivery), suggesting the value of delivery is understated solely due to the enjoyment of the letter.

Evaluating the Options

Review each option to find the one that best describes the argument's flawed reasoning. Option C points out the confusion between the value of the content delivered (the enjoyment from reading a letter) and the value of the delivery service itself, which the argument fails to clearly distinguish.

Key concepts

Argument Analysis

Argument analysis is a critical skill, especially when tackling exercises like those found in LSAT Logical Reasoning sections. The essence of argument analysis is to break down the argument into clear components, which include the premises and the conclusion. The goal is to understand the basic structure and whether the conclusion indeed follows logically from the premises.
In the original exercise, the argument suggests that a five-cent increase in postal rates is trivial because receiving personal mail is a profound experience. While analyzing this argument, it’s important to identify the claim (postal service is a bargain even with a rate increase) and the underlying assumption (the value of the service equals the pleasure of the mail). This implies a logical leap, where the enjoyment of reading a letter is confounded with the value of the delivery service itself.
To effectively analyze any argument, look for these components:

• Identify the main conclusion – this is what the argument is trying to convince you of.
• Pinpoint the evidence provided – these are the premises or reasons given to support the conclusion.
• Detect any assumptions – these are unstated premises that link the evidence to the conclusion.

Recognizing these elements is crucial in discerning the logical soundness of an argument.

Logical Fallacies

Logical fallacies often hide in the gaps between evidence and conclusion, making otherwise convincing arguments flawed. A logical fallacy occurs when reasoning breaks down or is based on faulty logic. Understanding different types of logical fallacies can help you spot weaknesses in arguments.
In the exercise, the argument commits a type of logical fallacy known as equivocation. This fallacy occurs when a word or phrase is used ambiguously in the argument. Here, the argument mixes the value of the postal service with the personal enjoyment of a letter received. It confuses the qualitative feeling of receiving a letter with the monetary worth of sending it.
Here are some common logical fallacies you might encounter:

• Ad Hominem – attacking the person instead of the argument.
• Straw Man – misrepresenting an argument to make it easier to attack.
• False Dilemma – presenting two options as the only possible choices.
• Appeal to Emotion – manipulating emotions rather than using valid reasoning.

Recognizing these fallacies requires practice but ultimately strengthens critical reasoning skills.

Critical Reasoning

Critical reasoning goes beyond mere comprehension; it involves analyzing, evaluating, and constructing arguments. It is indispensable for LSAT prep as it enables you to dissect arguments, identify unstated assumptions, and evaluate the strength of evidence presented.
In the context of the exercise provided, critical reasoning allows you to question the connection between the pleasure derived from a letter and its delivery service. Is the argument really showing you why a five-cent increase is trivial? Or is it subtly relying on the emotional weight of personal communication to overshadow logical evaluation of the service cost?
To engage in critical reasoning:

• Question the relevance of each premise – how does it specifically support the conclusion?
• Look for gaps in logic – are there assumptions made that haven't been justified?
• Evaluate the sufficiency of evidence – does the argument rely heavily on subjective matters rather than objective data?

These skills will not only aid in answering LSAT questions but will enhance overall decision-making and problem-solving abilities.

LSAT Prep

Preparing for the LSAT requires mastering various types of logical reasoning patterns and developing the skill to swiftly identify and evaluate elements of arguments. The LSAT Logical Reasoning section tests your ability to apply argument analysis, recognize logical fallacies, and utilize critical reasoning under time constraints.
For effective LSAT prep, it is essential to focus on a few key strategies:

• Practice regularly with timed drills - to become efficient and accurate under test conditions.
• Analyze past logical reasoning questions - pay attention to commonly used fallacies and argument structures.
• Review incorrect answers - to understand mistakes and learn from them.

Remember, the goal of LSAT prep is not just immediate familiarity but also building a deep understanding of logical analysis that will serve you well in both the exam and future legal studies.

Test Preparation

General test preparation involves more than mastering content; it requires strategizing and creating a study schedule that suits your learning style and goals. For anyone tackling the LSAT, integrating logical reasoning practice with overall test preparation is essential.
Here’s how to effectively prepare for tests, with a focus on logical reasoning:

• Create a study plan – allocate time for consistent and varied practice, including full-length practice tests.
• Understand the test format – familiarizing yourself with the structure and timing can reduce stress on test day.
• Relaxation techniques – such as mindfulness can help maintain focus during preparation and the actual test.
• Seek feedback – from practice tests or study groups to uncover areas needing improvement.

Comprehensive test preparation doesn’t just aim for performance in one area; it ensures that you are mentally, strategically, and emotionally ready to tackle the test as a whole.