PrepTest 104, Section 4, Question 10
Unplugging a peripheral component such as a "mouse"(44 more words not shown)
The argument is most vulnerable(7 more words not shown)
- AIt contains a(12 more words not shown)
- BIt treats an(18 more words not shown)
- CIt introduces information(11 more words not shown)
- DIt attempts to(11 more words not shown)
- EIt overlooks the(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Fred got a virus. Or a bad software update broke the program. Unplugging the mouse would make a program that requires it unusable, but plenty of other things could do that too.
The first sentence gives us one way to get the result. The next sentence says the result happened. That doesn't identify its cause. Fred's mouse could still be plugged in while a software bug prevents the program from working.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, that's the prediction: the author treats a possible cause as the required cause. We should accept that unplugging the mouse would disable the program while refusing to assume that every disabled program must have an unplugged mouse.
Working the answers
- A
Nothing in the argument shifts from permanent to temporary unusability. Both statements concern a program that can't be used. The author doesn't establish a duration in one sentence and secretly change it in another. This answer invents a distinction that isn't doing any work in the reasoning.
- BCorrect
Match the wording to the actual events. The event that can cause the result is unplugging the mouse; the result is a mouse-dependent program becoming unusable. The author then concludes that the mouse must have been unplugged, as though the result couldn't occur without that event. A virus or a software bug shows why the event isn't required. The stated rule can be true while the conclusion about Fred is false.
- C
The evidence is related to the conclusion. Learning that an unplugged mouse can disable this kind of program gives us a possible explanation for Fred's problem. The trouble is that it doesn't establish that explanation over the alternatives. Evidence can be relevant without being enough to prove a conclusion.
- D
The first sentence is a general rule, but the argument's mistake isn't that the rule covers too many programs. It specifically applies to programs that require the component being unplugged. Even if that rule is entirely accurate, the conclusion still fails because other causes could make such a program unusable. We don't need to dispute the rule to expose the error.
- E
Some other programs might not require a mouse, but Fred's program expressly does. Those other programs don't change the question of what made this one unusable. The overlooked possibility we need is another cause of failure in a program that requires a mouse, not the existence of programs with different requirements.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.