LR Drill Set 4, Question 12
Nutritionists have found that a breakfast including milk,(37 more words not shown)
The argument above is most(12 more words not shown)
- AThe Vicksville Museum(50 more words not shown)
- BA typical business(49 more words not shown)
- CThe local tourist(51 more words not shown)
- DThe Vicksville Museum(49 more words not shown)
- EThe local tourist(46 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the milk, fruit, and cereal supply all the nutrition?
The complete breakfast contains what we need. Let's accept that. Krispy Kakes are included in the breakfast, but being on the plate doesn't establish how much they contribute. They could supply a great deal, a little, or nothing relevant to the nutritional result. The passage hasn't separated their contribution from the contributions of the other foods.
Imagine a team completing a large project. Knowing the team did the work doesn't tell us that one particular member did a substantial share. That person might have contributed very little while the others handled almost everything. The same problem arises when we move from the whole breakfast to one item in it.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to match the flaw. I'd look for several things together providing a result, followed by an unsupported conclusion that one selected member provides a lot of that result. The direction matters: whole group's contribution first, claimed individual contribution second. An answer that starts with the individual's contribution and draws a conclusion about the group would be doing something different.
Working the answers
- A
This starts by giving the museum a large contribution, then concludes that the tourist industry as a whole supplies all the revenue. That's the opposite direction from the breakfast argument. There, we know the whole meal supplies the nutrition and infer that one item supplies a lot. A also moves from “a great deal” to “all,” but the reversed direction is already enough to distinguish it.
- B
A typical business provides a significant share, but the museum might not be typical. That's a different concern. The original doesn't describe a typical breakfast food and then assume Krispy Kakes resemble it. It describes the combined contribution of a group of foods. A usual member's contribution and the whole group's contribution are not the same starting point.
- C
Both the industry and the museum are said to provide a great deal of revenue. The conclusion then puts the museum inside that industry. The original already puts Krispy Kakes inside the breakfast; what it wrongly infers is their contribution. C instead uses a shared contribution to infer membership.
- D
We know the museum belongs to the tourist industry, but the revenue premise concerns many local industries. We aren't even told that the tourist industry is among those contributors. The original gives a nutritional result for the very breakfast containing Krispy Kakes. D never establishes the corresponding result for the museum's own industry.
- ECorrect
The tourist industry matches the whole breakfast: it provides all of the needed revenue, just as the breakfast supplies all of the needed nutrients. The museum matches Krispy Kakes: it is one member of the group. Then the answer attributes a large contribution to that member without establishing its share.
Maybe other tourist businesses supply nearly all the revenue and the museum contributes very little. That's the same possibility as the milk, fruit, and cereal supplying the nutrition while Krispy Kakes contribute little. Membership in the successful group doesn't establish a substantial individual contribution.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.