PrepTest 107, Section 3, Question 24
Mr. Nance: Ms. Chan said that she retired(73 more words not shown)
Mr. Nance's reasoning is flawed(2 more words not shown)
- Ais based in(3 more words not shown)
- Bcriticizes Ms. Chan(6 more words not shown)
- Cdraws a conclusion(4 more words not shown)
- Dfails to consider(10 more words not shown)
- Efails to infer(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Ms. Chan got a new job.
She says she retired from Quad Cities Corporation. That does not mean she promised never to work again. She could leave that company after 40 years, enjoy her farewell party, and then take a demanding job elsewhere. Her colleague could truthfully report that she now travels more and works harder.
Other possibilities work too. Perhaps she already had two jobs and retired from only one. Perhaps she retired and later decided to return to work. We do not have to establish which story happened. One possible situation in which both people tell the truth is enough to challenge Mr. Nance's claim that at least one is not telling the truth.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, keep that objection in mind: leaving a particular job does not require an end to all work. I want an answer explaining how Mr. Nance mistakenly turns these two compatible reports into a contradiction.
Working the answers
- A
The information does come from things other people said. But relying on those reports is not the problem we identified. Even if both reports are completely accurate, Ms. Chan could have retired from Quad Cities and be busy at another job. We can show the error without deciding that either report is unreliable.
- B
Mr. Nance does not reject Ms. Chan's claim because of some criticism of her character. He compares the two reports and concludes that at least one person is not telling the truth. He does not even establish that Ms. Chan, rather than the colleague, is the person at fault. His mistake lies in treating the reports as incompatible.
- CCorrect
“Equivocal language” is language that allows different meanings. Here, retiring from one company means leaving that employment. Mr. Nance treats retirement as an end to working altogether.
That change in meaning creates the supposed conflict. Business trips would conflict with doing no work at all, but they do not conflict with leaving Quad Cities for another position. Once we keep those meanings separate, there is no need to conclude that either person is untruthful.
- D
If Ms. Chan deceived her colleague, that would not undermine Mr. Nance's conclusion that at least one person is not telling the truth. It would fit that conclusion. Our objection is that neither person needs to be wrong: the two reports can both accurately describe her situation.
- E
Forty years of loyal service does not prove superior character or guarantee that someone always tells the truth. We do not need that claim to defend Ms. Chan's report. The relevant possibility is that she left one job and continued working, regardless of her overall character.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.