PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 14
Wu: Jurgens is dishonest and so should not(25 more words not shown)
Miller's questionable reasoning in which(17 more words not shown)
- AWu: We should(25 more words not shown)
- BWu: Bailey should(21 more words not shown)
- CWu: We should(22 more words not shown)
- DWu: We should(16 more words not shown)
- EWu: This job(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Miller doesn't respond by saying Jurgens is honest. The response shifts to a different consideration: toughness.
Wu treats dishonesty as a reason not to elect Jurgens. We might want more information before accepting that recommendation, such as whether the alternatives are any better. But the question focuses on Miller's reply, so keep that separate from objections we could make to Wu.
Miller accepts the discussion of honesty and argues for the opposite recommendation because honest people usually lack the toughness needed to run a city. My first description would be that Miller leaves the criticized trait in place and changes what matters to the decision.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for the same questionable reply in another dialogue. It isn't enough for the speakers merely to disagree. We need to examine how Miller uses a new consideration to defend the person or option Wu rejects.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Wu rejects the restaurant because its service is slow, just as Wu rejects Jurgens because he is dishonest. Miller responds that quickly served food is often poor, just as the original Miller says honest people usually aren't tough enough.
Now we can make the shared mistake precise. A problem with fast service doesn't prove this slow restaurant serves good food. It might be slow and bad. Likewise, a problem with honest candidates doesn't prove Jurgens is tough. He might be dishonest and weak.
Both replies defend an option by pointing to a problem associated with the opposite trait, without showing that the chosen option has the desired quality.
- B
Miller describes a benefit associated with the very trait Bailey has: aggressive people generally resist being pushed around. That supplies a reason favoring an aggressive spokesperson.
To match the original, Miller would instead need to say that people who are not aggressive get pushed around, then assume Bailey avoids that problem merely because he is aggressive. B doesn't make that particular jump from the opposite group's weakness to this person's strength.
- C
As in B, Miller directly assigns a benefit to the criticized trait: bright colors keep people awake. The proposed paint is bright. A closer match would criticize nonbright colors and then assume this bright color has the desired effect. The actual reply gives the benefit directly.
- D
Miller says the best software normally costs more. That could tempt someone to treat high price as evidence of quality, but it uses a different relationship: good quality is associated with the criticized trait of expense. The original instead says the opposite trait—honesty—is associated with a problem. D would be closer if it argued from cheap software being bad to this expensive software being good.
- E
Wu supports hiring one applicant, and Miller recommends a different person. The reply about everyone starting without experience doesn't identify an undesirable consequence of the opposite trait and use it to defend Wu's rejected option. The structure and recommendation both differ.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.