PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 19
If the flowers Drew received today had been(85 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AMost people send(5 more words not shown)
- BSome people send(10 more words not shown)
- CSomeone who does(11 more words not shown)
- DThe florist has(8 more words not shown)
- ESome people who(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Knowing Drew prefers violets doesn't force someone to buy violets.
What if roses cost $2 while violets cost $50? A sender might know the preference and choose the cheaper flowers anyway. Or the violets might be unavailable. Knowing which expensive gift someone would most enjoy doesn't mean you will buy it every time. The missing link is between knowing a preference and acting on it.
The card rule doesn't close that gap. We're told a sender who didn't know Drew well would have included a signed card, but there was no card. A sender who does know Drew well could still have intentionally ordered these roses without one. The florist might have delivered exactly what was requested.
What we’re looking for
That's what I'd want a weakener to make more plausible. We need a reason for the actual delivery that doesn't require the florist to have made a mistake. My initial possibilities concern price or availability; let's see whether a choice supplies a way the sender's deliberate choice could explain it.
Working the answers
- A
Most people choosing roses doesn't tell us why this sender chose them despite Drew's preference. Perhaps most recipients prefer roses. A broad popularity figure doesn't explain this particular combination of a known preference and the delivered flowers as directly as B does.
- BCorrect
The sender might not be trying to please Drew. Someone could know Drew well, know the preference for violets, and deliberately send roses for another purpose. Perhaps the sender even wants to annoy Drew.
That is different from the price explanation I first considered, but it attacks the same missing connection. Knowledge of the preference doesn't guarantee an attempt to satisfy it. The roses and missing card could reflect an intentional order by someone familiar with Drew, leaving no florist mistake to explain.
- C
This makes an unfamiliar sender less likely, but it doesn't explain why a familiar sender would choose roses. The argument's problem remains even if we agree the sender probably knows Drew well. Knowing Drew and choosing the preferred flowers still need to be connected.
- D
A florist who has never made this mistake before could make it today. There might even have been few or no earlier deliveries to Drew. The past record doesn't explain how this particular delivery could be exactly what the sender intended. B supplies that explanation more directly.
- E
The rule says someone unfamiliar with Drew would send a card. It doesn't say that only unfamiliar people send cards. Friends can include cards too without violating that rule.
So the examples in E are compatible with the argument's premise. They don't explain today's roses without a card or show that this delivery was intentional. Don't add a rule that familiar people never send cards and then treat E as a counterexample to it; that added rule isn't in the passage.
More Weaken questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Weaken questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.