PrepTest 110, Section 3, Question 23
Societies in which value is measured primarily in(30 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in which(13 more words not shown)
- AAnimals of different(21 more words not shown)
- BEcosystems close to(31 more words not shown)
- CInsects pass through(20 more words not shown)
- DPoets frequently convey(24 more words not shown)
- ETechnologically sophisticated machines(27 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Money isn't the only thing that could divide a society.
I'll accept the claim that societies focused primarily on money always break into isolated social groups. But why would avoiding that focus guarantee unity? A society could put little value on money and still be divided by a war or another source of conflict. Taking away one route to fragmentation doesn't eliminate every route.
That's the mistake our parallel answer needs: one kind of group has a feature; a second group isn't that kind of group; therefore the second group lacks the feature. Here, the first group is societies focused on money, the feature is social fragmentation, and the second group is nonindustrial societies.
What we’re looking for
I would initially look for a very close match to that structure.
Working the answers
- A
This stops short of the bad inference. Different genera cannot interbreed, but jackals and wolves belong to the same genus. The speaker says that the rule therefore doesn't prove they cannot interbreed. The speaker does not conclude that they can. Our original argument goes further: it treats the absence of the stated cause of fragmentation as proof of unity.
- B
This turns a usual pattern into a definite result. Ecosystems near the equator usually have more species, but that doesn't guarantee this particular comparison between the Sahara and Siberia. The original mistake is different: it assumes that a group outside the named category must lack the category's stated feature.
- C
This moves from one subgroup to a larger group. Insects have these stages, insects are arthropods, so all arthropods probably do. Our argument doesn't extend a trait from part of a group to the whole group. It uses being outside a category to conclude that a trait is absent.
- DCorrect
Poets take the place of money-focused societies; nonliteral language takes the place of fragmentation; journalists take the place of nonindustrial societies. Journalists aren't poets, but that doesn't prevent them from using metaphors or other nonliteral language. Poets aren't the only people who can do that.
“Frequently” isn't identical to the original's “invariably,” so this isn't a word-for-word match. The central error still matches: being outside the named group is treated as enough to rule out a feature. Just as nonindustrial societies could fragment, journalists could use nonliteral language.
- E
This applies a general comparison between more and less sophisticated tools to computers and pencils. It doesn't argue that something outside a category must lack a feature. Whatever questions we might have about the particular comparison, it doesn't repeat the mistake we identified.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.