PrepTest 101, Section 2, Question 6
Several excellent candidates have been proposed for the(51 more words not shown)
The argument is vulnerable to(6 more words not shown)
- Auses flattery to(8 more words not shown)
- Brefutes a distorted(5 more words not shown)
- Cseeks to distinguish(14 more words not shown)
- Dsupports a universal(8 more words not shown)
- Edescribes an individual(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Different doesn't mean better.
Jones has a set of qualifications that none of the other candidates has. Fine. But the argument began by telling us that each candidate brings different talents and experience. Couldn't each of them point to a combination the others lack?
Imagine one candidate has experience running a factory and another has experience managing a sales team. Their backgrounds are different, but we still need to know which experience will help the next president do the job. Jones's unique combination might be the most useful. It might not. Calling it unique hasn't made that comparison for us.
Even someone with no relevant management experience could have a one-of-a-kind background. That would make the person different without making the person qualified to run United Wire. So my objection is to treating uniqueness as proof of being the best.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to describe that mistake. Watch for the extra problem here: uniqueness doesn't even separate Jones from this group. The author singles her out using a feature the other candidates share—their qualifications differ from everyone else's.
Working the answers
- A
Flattery would mean trying to win opponents over by praising them. The author calls the candidates excellent, but doesn't use praise of an opponent as a reason for that opponent to accept the conclusion. The argument tries to establish Jones's superiority by pointing to her qualifications. That comparison, not an attempt to charm someone, is what fails.
- B
We aren't given an opposing argument that the author changes into an easier argument to attack. Nobody is quoted as favoring another candidate for some reason that the author then misrepresents. The mistake occurs within the author's own case for Jones.
- CCorrect
The member being singled out is Jones. The supposedly distinguishing feature is having a unique set of qualifications. But the opening tells us that each candidate brings different talents and experience, so each has a claim to that kind of distinctiveness.
Saying “Jones is different from the others” doesn't show she is better than them. The same statement could be made about another candidate. We need a reason her particular differences make her the best person for this job, and the author hasn't supplied one.
- D
The conclusion concerns this candidate for this job. It isn't a rule about every candidate or every hiring decision. A different argument might say, “Jones was a great president, so everyone with a unique background makes a great president.” That would generalize from one example. This argument doesn't make that broader claim.
- E
An individual can have a unique set of qualifications. There is nothing wrong with describing Jones that way. The problem is what the author concludes from the description. E would require a description that makes sense only for the entire group; uniqueness isn't such a description.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.