PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 2
No one wants this job as much as(28 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in the(12 more words not shown)
- ABeth knows better(39 more words not shown)
- BIf anyone can(41 more words not shown)
- CAlthough he has(38 more words not shown)
- DThe person initially(36 more words not shown)
- EThree times Paul(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Joshua wants the job most. That doesn't make him the only person who might apply. Maybe he lives in the wrong city and can't move. Maybe he already has obligations that prevent him from taking the job. Someone who wants it less might have neither problem and submit an application immediately. Joshua's circumstances don't become everyone else's circumstances just because he is the most enthusiastic candidate.
So the argument hasn't shown that there will be no applicants. Increasing the salary could make the job attractive to other people even if it never changes Joshua's decision.
What we’re looking for
The parallel-flaw question asks for the same jump: the person with the strongest desire isn't pursuing an opportunity, so nobody will pursue it, regardless of how attractive the terms become. Keep the individual, the desire, and the sweeping conclusion straight. Mentioning an unusually capable or interested person isn't enough by itself.
Working the answers
- A
Beth's skill at finding errors resembles Joshua's standout position in one respect: each is at the top of a comparison. But the conclusion here is about where errors must be located. It doesn't say that nobody will find errors because Beth hasn't found any. That different conclusion breaks the match. To resemble the original more closely, A would need to extend one person's failure to everyone else's failure, rather than locate the errors elsewhere.
- B
The professor isn't available for this task, but the conclusion leaves open the possibility of finding someone else. The original does the opposite: it rules everyone else out because Joshua isn't applying. Whatever we think of the claim about the professor's ability, looking for another person is not the same mistake as concluding there can be no other applicant.
- CCorrect
Manfred is Joshua: he has the strongest motive to pursue the opportunity but isn't pursuing it. Buying Anna's land takes the place of applying for the job. Then the argument rules out every other buyer, just as the original rules out every other applicant. Lowering the price makes the land more attractive, paralleling the higher salary, yet the author says even that won't help. Manfred could have a personal reason not to buy while someone with less desire is willing and able. The same gap remains.
- D
Mr. Moore's interest and withdrawal are a promising start, but watch what happens to the other bidders. The author predicts they will try harder. Our original predicts nobody will apply. D therefore makes a different forecast about the effect of the most interested person's absence; it doesn't use that absence to eliminate everyone else.
- E
This connects Paul's missed vacations with increasing constraints as he gains seniority. It never compares Paul's desire with everyone else's, and it never concludes that nobody will take a vacation because Paul can't. The claim about seniority may itself need support, but that isn't the particular mistake we're matching.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.