PrepTest 109, Section 1, Question 15
People who are good at playing the game(21 more words not shown)
The flawed pattern of reasoning(15 more words not shown)
- APeople with long(18 more words not shown)
- BPeople who write(19 more words not shown)
- CAll race car(20 more words not shown)
- DThe role of(30 more words not shown)
- EAny good skier(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Mary makes excellent watches and has no idea how to play Drackedary.
The first sentence tells us that good Drackedary players are skilled with their hands. It doesn't say hand skill is all the game requires. A player might also need to know the rules, make good strategic decisions or have other abilities. Even if Mary is good with her hands, that alone wouldn't establish that she'd be good at this game.
There is another jump before we even get that far. We aren't expressly told that a competent watchmaker has skilled hands. That sounds plausible, but perhaps Mary uses a machine. The argument expects us to fill in that connection and then treat hand skill as enough to make her a good player.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel-flaw question, I want both moves: someone succeeds at another activity, we take that as evidence of an ability, and we assume that ability makes the person good at the target activity. The opening rule should only tell us that people in the target activity have the ability.
Working the answers
- A
This rule runs in the direction the conclusion needs: people with long legs make good runners. Daryl has long legs because everyone in Daryl's family does, so the rule supports calling Daryl a good runner.
Our argument would need the opposite starting point for the same problem: good runners have long legs, and Daryl has long legs, so Daryl must be a good runner. That is not what A says.
- B
There may be a gap between being a published novelist and writing for a living. Julie could publish novels while earning a living from another job. That resembles the unsupported watchmaker-to-hand-skill connection.
But the rest goes in the right direction. If Julie does write for a living, the rule tells us that she enjoys reading. It does not start with her enjoyment of reading and use that to establish that she writes for a living. B can resemble one jump without matching both.
- CCorrect
Race car drivers occupy the role of good Drackedary players. Good reflexes occupy the role of skilled hands. Chris's table tennis success occupies the role of Mary's watchmaking success.
First, we assume that success at table tennis establishes the relevant reflexes, just as we assumed watchmaking establishes hand skill. Then we treat those reflexes as enough to make Chris a good race car driver. But the rule only says race car drivers have good reflexes; it doesn't say anyone with good reflexes can race well. Chris might not even know how to drive. Both jumps match the original.
- D
This moves from something often being true to something having to be true in Erwin's case. Even if experienced actors often play Santa, an inexperienced actor could do it too. Our original starts with an invariable connection and uses it in the wrong direction. D's problem is turning a frequency claim into a guarantee, and it lacks the separate-activity connection.
- E
The rule allows us to conclude that Erica can eventually learn to ice-skate. The conclusion adds a much shorter deadline: a day or two. Nothing establishes that speed. This is an unsupported jump from eventual success to rapid success, not a mistake about whether an ability shared by good performers guarantees good performance.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.