PrepTest 113, Section 4, Question 4
An overwhelming number of industry's chief executive officers(29 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AMany opera singers(22 more words not shown)
- BThe most famous(24 more words not shown)
- CMany of the(19 more words not shown)
- DQuite a few(28 more words not shown)
- EA great many(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Going to their school doesn't give Greta their jobs.
We know that many highly paid chief executives attended prestigious business schools. That tells us something about the executives' education. It doesn't tell us that everyone with that education becomes a highly paid executive. Greta could have the same educational background and do something else entirely.
Try a football version. Suppose many professional football players attended a particular group of universities. Would enrolling at one of those universities make you a professional player? Of course not. The schools could also have graduates in all sorts of other occupations.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, I'd keep two descriptions separate: being a highly paid CEO and attending a prestigious school. Many people with the first description have the second. Greta has the second, so the author assumes she must have the first. We want that same unsupported move from a shared attribute back to membership in the group.
Working the answers
- A
Fred is already described as an opera singer. The conclusion doesn't use his being high-strung to establish that membership; it predicts health problems instead. To match the original, the argument would need to say Fred is high-strung and therefore must be an opera singer. A adds a new outcome rather than moving back to the original group.
- B
This predicts that one person will be more famous than another. The original doesn't compare Greta with a rival or rank their future success. It assigns her to a group because she has an attribute many group members share. A comparison involving Otto's lack of practice isn't that same inference, and we aren't even told how much Franz practices.
- C
The premise concerns where popular performers come from; the conclusion concerns who enjoys their music. Being an Italian opera singer and being an Italian who enjoys opera aren't the same role. To match, we'd need a particular Italian person to be declared a popular opera singer merely because many popular singers are Italian. C doesn't make that move.
- D
Carrying a nail is treated as the cause of George's good luck. George is already an opera singer, so the nail isn't being used to prove that he belongs to the group. To match, we'd want someone who carries a bent nail to be declared an opera singer on that basis. A questionable explanation of luck is a different error.
- ECorrect
Successful opera singers correspond to the highly paid CEOs. Studying more than one language corresponds to attending a prestigious business school. Eileen, like Greta, has the educational attribute shared by many members of the successful group.
Then E makes the same jump: Eileen must belong to that group herself. She could study several languages without becoming a successful opera singer, just as Greta could attend the school without becoming a highly paid CEO. The premise describes an attribute of many successful people; it doesn't make that attribute a guarantee of their success.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.