LR Drill Set 14, Question 6
John wants to win the annual Mayfield raffle(56 more words not shown)
The argument exhibits which one(6 more words not shown)
- Apresupposing that a(18 more words not shown)
- Bmistaking for the(10 more words not shown)
- Cassuming without warrant(20 more words not shown)
- Dassuming that an(9 more words not shown)
- Econfusing the likelihood(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Winning some raffle isn't the same as winning the Mayfield raffle.
At first, the claim about entering more raffles sounds reasonable: more opportunities can improve John's chance of winning at least one. Even then, a better chance needn't be a good chance. Moving from a tiny chance to a slightly less tiny chance wouldn't make a win likely. That's one possible mistake to watch for.
But the conclusion makes a different mistake. John needs the Mayfield prize, and the advice is to enter several other raffles. Why would entering a drawing for some other prize improve his chance in Mayfield's drawing?
Imagine he enters Mayfield and four unrelated raffles. He could win one of those four and still lose Mayfield. That would count as winning a raffle while failing to get the particular prize he needs. The extra opportunities haven't been shown to improve his odds in the drawing he cares about.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, that's our prediction: the argument moves from a better chance of winning any raffle to a better chance of winning this specific raffle. We don't need to invent an elegant abstract label. We can recognize an answer that describes that switch.
Working the answers
- A
This would mean that wanting the prize makes John more likely to win it. The argument doesn't rely on that. His desire explains his goal; the supposed increase in his chances comes from entering more raffles. The mistake concerns which chance those extra entries improve.
- B
Entering a raffle is the activity; winning its prize is the goal. The author doesn't treat those as the same thing. The confusion is between winning at least one of several raffles and winning the particular raffle John wants. B's abstract language doesn't describe that distinction.
- C
The argument doesn't limit John to activities that are likely to succeed or guarantee his success from choosing such activities. It recommends additional raffles to improve his chances. Even accepting that improvement for winning something, we still haven't established an improvement for winning Mayfield.
- D
Nobody says an unlikely win is impossible. The author is trying to increase John's likelihood of winning, not rule out a win because its likelihood is low. This doesn't describe the shift from any raffle to Mayfield.
- ECorrect
Translate the two parts separately. “At least one event in a set” means winning at least one of the raffles John enters. The “designated event” is winning Mayfield. Entering more raffles can improve the first chance without improving the second. E uses abstract language for the exact confusion we identified: getting some win does not necessarily get John the win he needs.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.