LR Drill Set 3, Question 9
The custodian maintains that if she had stolen(38 more words not shown)
The flawed pattern of reasoning(19 more words not shown)
- AThe pet owner(36 more words not shown)
- BThe presiding election(44 more words not shown)
- CThe airplane manufacturer(38 more words not shown)
- DThe promoter of(37 more words not shown)
- EThe government official(39 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if she stole the formula but never sold it?
The custodian describes two actions together: stealing the formula and selling it to a competitor. If she did both, she says, she would have collected a fortune and quit. She hasn't quit, so we can use that rule to reject the combination. It still doesn't tell us which part failed to happen.
Maybe she took the formula and couldn't find a buyer. Maybe she took it and changed her mind about selling it. In either case, she could still be working for minimum wage, even with the rule she stated entirely true. We don't need to call her a liar to expose the gap.
The conclusion goes too far by clearing her of the theft alone.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, keep both conditions together. We want an argument saying that doing two things would produce an outcome, observing that the outcome didn't occur, and concluding that one particular thing wasn't done. The missing possibility is that the person did that thing but never did the other.
Working the answers
- A
The dog was bitten, so one of the two conditions is established. If the raccoon also had rabies, the stated rule says the dog would have fallen ill. Since it didn't, the answer can rule out rabies using that rule. To match our flaw, it would need to conclude no rabies without telling us whether the bite occurred. That extra bite fact makes the difference.
- BCorrect
Accepting a bribe matches stealing the formula. Falsifying the results matches selling it. An incumbent victory matches the predicted outcome of quitting the job. We are told the outcome didn't happen, then asked to conclude that the official didn't accept the bribe.
But she could have accepted the money and failed to falsify the results. That possibility corresponds to stealing the formula without selling it. Both arguments improperly rule out one action when the failed outcome only rules out doing the two together.
- C
This rule concerns the manufacturer's newest passenger jet. Given the rule and the absence of discovered problems, the argument can exclude a design flaw in that jet. Its mistake is then claiming there are no flaws in any of the manufacturer's airplanes. That expansion from one model to all airplanes differs from our two-actions problem.
- D
Good weather is explicitly established. With that condition in place, ample parking would have produced success under the stated rule. Since success didn't occur, the argument can rule out ample parking. Like A, D confirms one component before excluding the other. The original never establishes that the custodian sold the formula.
- E
This makes motive and opportunity requirements for being the leaker. If the official lacks motive, she lacks one required condition and can be ruled out under that rule. It does not describe two actions that jointly guarantee an outcome and then use the missing outcome to reject one action. The similar topic of defending an official doesn't make the logic parallel.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.