SAT Example Flaw Question #1 Explained

Hello there, so here is our daily LSAT question, you could pause the video and try this question out on your own. Once you're ready, unpause it and we'll go over it together. Okay, so we'll get started, first things first, we'll read it over. My good friend claims I'm a reckless driver, but that is ridiculous and obviously wrong. My vehicle make has been recommended from countless auto experts as one of the safest on the road due to its state-of-the-art crumple zones and ample airbags protect me from all directions. In addition, I always wear my seatbelt and I don't drive when there's bad weather. And if we look at the type of question, this is a flawed question, so we need to find a flaw and the first thing you should do is try to find the conclusion. And in this case, the conclusion is the first sentence, not the whole first sentence, but only the second half. And there's an indicator word that indicates the conclusion, the word but, which is quite helpful. It doesn't always tell you the conclusion, but it's a good place to get started with. And in this case, it does work out. So next we have to think about the evidence and the evidence is everything after that conclusion. Basically, it talks about the vehicle, the vehicle is safe, and also this person doesn't drive when there's bad weather. But even if that is all true, the person could still be a reckless driver, so pretty much their argument is just ridiculous, it's just flawed. In other words, they're just talking about something completely different, they never actually address the issue at hand, they talk about the vehicle, but not them themselves. So not the most difficult argument, but either way, we'll look at the answers. So let's look at A, treats lack of evidence as evidence that he is in fact a good driver. Well, they never mentioned he's a good driver, just that he's not reckless, so that's something entirely different, so cross out A. Next we have B, ignores the possibility that a vehicle can still be unsafe, even if it's widely considered to be one of the safest on the road. But once again, this is talking about the vehicle, but we're not concerned about the vehicle, we're concerned about this person's driving habits, so that's not the flaw, so we cross out B, and next we'll look at C. So C states never properly addresses the friend's point that he is a reckless driver, and yeah, that is the correct answer, because he talks about something else, he goes off tangent, he never addresses the issue. So now we have the correct answer, but, you know, we'll just still look at D and E, just to see what they have to say. So D is talking about sufficient and required, and basically this has something to do with conditionals, and a conditional is an if-then, so D would be the fallacy of like something of this sort, like if A then B, and then they do a reversal, like if B then A, but you know the flaw in the initial argument doesn't have much to do with conditionals, it's not where they're going, so D is incorrect. And finally, we have E, and this talks about causal versus correlation, which in this case is just not applicable. The fallacy is just something completely different. And that's it. So I hope you got the correct answer, and even if you did not, hopefully you learned something from this. Once again, not the smartest problem in the world, but in the future we'll show you some new ones, and they'll be different difficulty levels, you know, they'll be easy, medium, and hard ones, so stay tuned.