PrepTest 102, Section 3, Question 22
Congenial guests and a plentiful supply of good(38 more words not shown)
The pattern of flawed reasoning(17 more words not shown)
- AThe right ingredients,(38 more words not shown)
- BIf corn is(42 more words not shown)
- CMaking pie dough(45 more words not shown)
- DIf soup is(37 more words not shown)
- EFresh greens, carefully(35 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
There is plenty of food. Is it good food?
That small word matters. The rule promises a successful dinner party when the guests are congenial and there is plenty of good food and drink. Sylvia has the congenial guests and the quantity. But the description of her preparations never gives us the quality. A table covered in food nobody wants to eat would still be a plentiful supply.
So we haven't established all the ingredients of the promised success. The argument acts as though “more than enough to eat and drink” satisfies “more than enough good things to eat and drink.” It quietly drops a requirement while keeping the guaranteed result.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel-flaw question, look for that same missing qualification. Maybe an answer promises a result from properly prepared ingredients and then tells us only that the ingredients were prepared. We need to track what the rule actually calls for and what the later facts actually establish.
Working the answers
- A
All the qualifications survive. Emily has the right ingredients and has combined them properly. The conclusion still makes the result depend on using a reliable oven: the cake will come out well if she uses one. It doesn't claim the baking requirement has already been satisfied. Sylvia's argument, by contrast, declares success without establishing the food's quality. A doesn't drop a required feature.
- B
Wanting moist corn doesn't establish that George will choose this particular way of making it. The rule tells us what baking corn in its husks produces; it doesn't tell us what someone who wants that result must decide to do. George might choose another method. B infers an action from a desired outcome, instead of claiming the outcome after only partly satisfying the stated recipe.
- C
Andrew used ice water and thoroughly chilled the dough before rolling it out. Those are the conditions the rule gives for a flaky crust, so the conclusion follows from that rule. Mentioning the chilling before the ice water doesn't change the logic. Unlike Sylvia's argument, C preserves every relevant qualification.
- DCorrect
Fresh ingredients match Sylvia's congenial guests: that part of the rule is satisfied. Well-seasoned meat stock matches the plentiful supply of good things to eat and drink: the facts give us meat stock but omit the required seasoning, just as Sylvia's preparations give us plentiful food without establishing that it is good.
We can't declare the soup welcome merely because some of the recipe has been satisfied. D drops the quality requirement and then claims the guaranteed result, which is exactly the original mistake.
- E
This denies the result because one condition is absent. The recipe guarantees a refreshing salad when all its conditions are met, but it doesn't say that every other salad must be unrefreshing. That's a different error. Sylvia's argument claims success while overlooking an unestablished qualification; E claims failure after explicitly telling us a condition isn't met.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.