PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 21
Bank deposits are credited on the date of(36 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AJournalists are the(25 more words not shown)
- BWe know that(16 more words not shown)
- CIt is clear(28 more words not shown)
- DJohn believes that(24 more words not shown)
- EPat wants to(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Before 3 P.M. is a requirement, not a promise.
A deposit has to be made before 3 to receive same-day credit. But an early deposit could still be delayed for another reason. Knowing that Alicia met the time requirement doesn't establish that the deposit was credited that day.
There is also a separate jump about what Alicia knows. We're told she knows when the deposit was made. We aren't told she knows the bank's rule, much less that she knows the deposit received same-day credit. Even a sound connection between two facts wouldn't automatically mean a particular person knows that connection and its result. This isn't a reason to question whether she really knows the deposit time; we can accept that premise and still question what follows from it.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for both flaws in a parallel argument. So I want a requirement treated as a guarantee, plus a leap from someone's knowledge of one event to that person's knowledge of the supposed result. An answer that repeats only the first mistake isn't enough.
Working the answers
- A
Being a journalist is required to ask questions, but that doesn't guarantee every journalist permission. Marjorie could be a journalist who isn't allowed to ask. That matches the mistake about meeting the bank's time requirement.
But A doesn't draw a conclusion about what Marjorie knows. It concludes that she will be permitted to ask questions. We need the additional leap about a person's knowledge.
- B
Thursday is required for Patrice to work, but she needn't work every Thursday. So B repeats the requirement-to-guarantee mistake.
The word “know” can make this tempting. Look at where it appears: we know the rule about Patrice's schedule. The conclusion is simply that she is working. In the original, Alicia knows a particular fact—the deposit time—and the author concludes that she knows the alleged result. B doesn't reproduce that movement from one piece of a person's knowledge to another.
- CCorrect
Helen's resignation is required for George's promotion, just as a deposit before 3 is required for same-day credit. But Helen could resign and someone else could get the promotion. Meeting the requirement doesn't guarantee the result.
Now match the second flaw. George knows Helen will resign, corresponding to Alicia's knowledge of the deposit time. The author jumps to George knowing he will be promoted, corresponding to Alicia knowing the deposit was credited. Knowing that the required event will happen doesn't establish knowledge of the supposed outcome. C preserves both mistakes, with the knowledge claims attached to the same parts of the reasoning.
- D
The beliefs about 4 don't involve a required condition being mistaken for a guarantee. D draws a more general belief from the two stated beliefs about the same number. Whatever questions we might raise about how people combine their beliefs, that isn't the pair of flaws we need. The mere presence of someone's mental state doesn't make it parallel.
- E
Wanting a job doesn't mean wanting every feature of that job. Pat could want to help people while disliking the low pay. That is a mistake about what someone wants, but there is no rule establishing a requirement for an event, followed by the assumption that meeting it guarantees the event. E doesn't match both flaws.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.