PrepTest 106, Section 3, Question 21
If the law punishes littering, then the city(21 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AIf today is(21 more words not shown)
- BJenny will have(19 more words not shown)
- CThe new regulations(28 more words not shown)
- DIn the event(27 more words not shown)
- EWhen the law(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe providing trash cans is part of running a city, whether or not littering is punished.
We can argue about the rule itself, but let's grant it for this question: punishing littering creates an obligation to provide cans. That gives us one reason for the obligation. It doesn't say it is the only reason. The author removes that one reason and concludes there is no obligation at all.
Try the same move with spending money. If I go to the mall, I'll spend money. I didn't go to the mall, so I spent nothing today. What if I ordered something online? Avoiding one route to an outcome doesn't eliminate every route.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, look for that same pattern. A stated circumstance would produce a result; the circumstance doesn't occur; the author wrongly rules out the result. We'll need to track which part is absent, not just find an answer with an “if” or a negative word.
Working the answers
- A
A holiday would close the bakery, and we observe the closed bakery. The author then infers that it is a holiday. That's a different mistake: the bakery might be closed for repairs.
Here we start with the result and try to identify its cause. The original starts with the absence of the stated trigger—no punishment—and rules out the result. A doesn't follow that sequence.
- B
Having balloons at the birthday party doesn't establish that balloons must already be visible wherever Jenny happens to be on her birthday. The party might be later, or somewhere else. That is a gap between the party description and the claim about today.
It also starts by noticing the absence of the promised balloons. The original instead notices the absence of the triggering circumstance. B doesn't match the specific mistake we're looking for.
- C
Success requires most students to follow the regulations. The author learns that most will follow them and concludes success is assured. But meeting one requirement doesn't ensure that everything needed for success is in place.
That treats a required condition as a guarantee. The original takes a condition that would create an obligation, says the condition is absent, and denies the obligation. The parts are used differently.
- DCorrect
A late flight would make the speaker miss the meeting, just as punishment for littering would create the city's obligation. The flight isn't late, matching the absence of punishment. The speaker then rules out missing the meeting, matching the conclusion that the city has no obligation.
But another problem could still keep the speaker away. The car could break down on the way from the airport. Just as the city might have a different reason to provide cans, the speaker might have a different reason to miss the meeting. The same unsupported exclusion appears in both.
- E
The rule says enforcement brings at least some jailed people. If nobody is jailed, the result the rule requires is missing, so enforcement cannot be occurring under that rule. This is sound reasoning. It doesn't say that no enforcement means no jailed people, which would leave open other reasons people might be jailed and would match the original mistake.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.