PrepTest 105, Section 1, Question 22
Editorial: Supporters of the proposed law that would(59 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AIt is silly(32 more words not shown)
- BIt is foolish(44 more words not shown)
- CThe proposal to(38 more words not shown)
- DThe recommendation that(45 more words not shown)
- EThe mayor's directive(46 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More people die in other kinds of accidents. Could helmets still prevent some bicycle deaths?
I could imagine debating this law on other grounds, such as whether the decision should be left to each cyclist. But that's not the editorial's reason. It points to deaths among pedestrians and from drunken driving, then notes that nobody is calling for bans on walking or alcohol. Those other harms don't tell us whether requiring bicycle helmets is a good response to bicycle accidents.
A larger problem elsewhere doesn't make this problem disappear. Even accepting all the death figures, we still haven't heard why the proposed protection would be misguided.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel-flaw question, I'd look for the same distraction: reject a measure aimed at one risk because other activities cause more harm and aren't being prohibited. We need that particular comparison, not just another argument that mentions danger or disagrees with a proposal.
Working the answers
- A
This makes a connection between the other risks and the proposed benefit of giving up smoking. The claim is that test pilots probably won't live long enough to develop lung cancer, so the recommendation would have little chance to deliver that benefit. We might question whether that settles everything about smoking, but it is a different argument. The editorial never says pedestrians' deaths prevent cyclists from living long enough to benefit from helmets.
- BCorrect
Safety goggles correspond to bicycle helmets: both are protective measures during an activity. Laboratory accidents correspond to bicycle accidents. Food poisoning and contagious disease take the place of the other, more common harms cited by the editorial. In each argument, the absence of bans on those other activities is used to reject the proposed safety requirement.
But why would the number of illnesses from eating or socializing show that goggles are foolish? Goggles could protect lab workers regardless. B also reproduces the mismatch between requiring protection during an activity and prohibiting an activity altogether. Requiring goggles isn't banning laboratory work, just as requiring helmets isn't banning cycling.
- C
This does mention other subjects, but it gives them a particular relationship to the proposed study: they should be learned first. The calculus-and-arithmetic comparison is meant to support that idea of prerequisites. The editorial doesn't argue that solving pedestrian accidents or drunken driving is preparation required before helmets can help cyclists. C argues about an order of learning, not the absence of bans on more dangerous activities.
- D
The planned replacement of the trucks bears directly on when to replace their communication equipment. Waiting could avoid paying for an upgrade that will soon have to be replaced with the trucks. That is a cost-and-timing reason concerning the same proposal. It doesn't dismiss the upgrade by pointing to unrelated harms that nobody is trying to eliminate.
- E
This questions whether testing the whole workforce is an efficient way to address the stated disease risk, then proposes restricting testing to workers who may have been exposed. Its distinction is between groups the directive would cover. It doesn't cite a more common, different disease and complain that nobody is banning the activities associated with it.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.