PrepTest 106, Section 1, Question 19
The postmodern view involves the rejection of modern(68 more words not shown)
The argument's reasoning is questionable(3 more words not shown)
- Ainfers that something(11 more words not shown)
- Buses the term(2 more words not shown)
- Crelies on the(8 more words not shown)
- Duses the term(2 more words not shown)
- Efails to cite(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
People changed their beliefs. Did the world change with them?
The passage starts with an account of a viewpoint: grand theories are now seen as limited by their social and historical setting, and belief in order has given way to belief in irregularity and chaos. I'd like some concrete examples of those theories. But even before we get them, there's a more basic question: are these newer beliefs correct?
The conclusion skips that question. It says the world actually is full of irregular events and contains no universal truths. Describing what people believe doesn't establish that reality matches their beliefs.
Suppose someone believes chocolate milk comes from brown cows. Reporting that belief doesn't establish where chocolate milk comes from. The same problem remains when the belief sounds much more sophisticated and is associated with an entire school of thought.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to identify the flaw. Look for that move from a belief about the world to a claim about how the world really is. We don't have to settle the philosophical debate to see the missing support.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The evidence describes things that people now believe or ways they now see theories. The conclusion treats those views as facts about reality. To make that move, we'd need some reason to think the beliefs are accurate. Simply reporting a change in outlook doesn't supply one.
- B
An ambiguous term would have to be used in different ways that affect the reasoning. We don't see that happening with 'universal.' The passage discusses truths that apply beyond a particular social or historical context, then concludes there are no such truths. The problem is its support for that conclusion, not a switch in what 'universal' means.
- C
Words like 'chaos' might sound dramatic, but the argument isn't asking us to accept its conclusion because of how those words make us feel. Its evidence is the reported shift in beliefs. Even if we replaced the dramatic wording with dry, neutral language, the jump from belief to fact would remain.
- D
As with B, an unfamiliar or abstract term isn't automatically ambiguous. The passage contrasts order with irregularity and chaos; it doesn't establish one claim using one meaning of 'order' and draw a conclusion using another. This choice doesn't identify the actual gap in the reasoning.
- E
Concrete examples would make the discussion easier to understand. But listing modern theories that claim universal truths wouldn't show that the postmodern view is right about them. Even after naming several theories, the author would still need to justify treating the new beliefs as an accurate description of reality. The central flaw is that missing justification, not simply the absence of examples.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.