PrepTest 110, Section 2, Question 24
Lawyer: The defendant wanted to clear the snow(77 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in which(13 more words not shown)
- AAlice asked her(26 more words not shown)
- BBruce wanted to(18 more words not shown)
- CCheryl denigrated the(21 more words not shown)
- DDeon had lunch(24 more words not shown)
- EEdwina bought a(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
He meant to move the snow. That doesn't mean he meant to hurt someone.
The lawyer's story establishes that the defendant deliberately cleared the car and put snow on the sidewalk. It also establishes that the snow eventually became ice and caused an injury. But the lawyer even admits the defendant didn't know that injury would result. The intended action and the unforeseen harm are not the same thing.
We might still wonder whether putting snow there was careless. That is a different question from whether he intended to cause harm. The lawyer defines malice in terms of that intention, then tries to prove it with evidence of an intention to do something else: remove snow from a car.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, I'd look for that same loose treatment of intention. Someone wants to do one thing; it has another consequence or feature the person doesn't know about; the argument then treats that unknown consequence or feature as something the person wanted too.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion only says the requested action was illegal. The premise tells us lying in court is illegal, so the sister's ignorance doesn't prevent that conclusion. To match our flaw, we'd need a claim about what someone intended or wanted, such as inferring that the sister wanted to break the law merely because she wanted to perform the act. A doesn't make that move.
- BCorrect
Bruce's desire to eat the pie matches the defendant's intention to clear the snow. The poison in the pie is something Bruce doesn't know about, just as the eventual injury is something the defendant doesn't know will result. Then each argument transfers the person's intention to that unknown feature: Bruce wanted poison; the defendant intended harm.
Bruce could want the pie precisely because he thinks it is ordinary food. If he knew it was poisonous, he might refuse it. Likewise, the defendant could intend to clear his car without intending the injury that follows. The unforeseen result doesn't become an intended one just because it is connected to the intended action.
- C
This says Cheryl indirectly criticized her sister by criticizing the wine her sister chose. It doesn't say Cheryl intended to criticize her sister. Whether that indirect criticism is a fair description or not, the conclusion doesn't make our mistaken move from an action's effect to an intention to produce that effect.
- D
This does contain a flaw: being generally thought to be a spy doesn't establish that Ms. Osgood is a spy. But that is a mistake about what is true, not what Deon intended. The argument doesn't conclude that Deon wanted to have lunch with a spy because he wanted lunch with Ms. Osgood.
- E
The car was stolen, and Edwina sold it. So she sold a stolen car, whether or not she knew its history. That factual description doesn't require her to have wanted to sell stolen property. E would need to add that claim about her intention to repeat the lawyer's mistake.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.