PrepTest 114, Section 1, Question 16
Policy analyst: Increasing the size of a police(38 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in which(16 more words not shown)
- ASome people think(48 more words not shown)
- BSwamps play an(40 more words not shown)
- CAlthough less effective(39 more words not shown)
- DBecause taking this(27 more words not shown)
- EWe will never(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A partial solution can still be worth using.
The analyst says more police won't get at the root causes of crime. Let's accept that limit. Why would it mean officials shouldn't add officers? Perhaps additional officers could help with the immediate problem while other efforts addressed the causes. We don't have to establish that this would work in a particular city. The point is that failing to fix everything doesn't establish that a measure has no worthwhile role.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, I'd look for a helpful but incomplete response being rejected because it doesn't solve the underlying problem. Keep those parts together: a problem, a measure that addresses some of its effects, and a recommendation against the measure simply because it doesn't provide the complete solution.
Working the answers
- A
The first sentence presents the idea that demanding rules could guide people toward better behavior. The argument then claims those rules actually worsen behavior by making people cynical. That is a claim of harm, not merely a failure to solve the whole problem. It would be like arguing against more police because they increased crime, which is not the analyst's reasoning.
- B
Dams are credited with preventing many floods but blamed for making the greatest floods worse by drying swamps. Again, the rejection rests on an alleged harmful effect. The police argument says the measure doesn't address root causes; it doesn't say the measure worsens the consequences. B introduces a benefit-versus-harm comparison absent from the original.
- C
This weighs the extra theft losses from alarms against the money saved by using them instead of guards. It then recommends the less effective measure because its lower cost outweighs the disadvantage. Our analyst doesn't compare two responses by cost, and rejects the incomplete measure rather than recommending it. Those are substantial differences, even though both passages concern crime prevention.
- DCorrect
The disease corresponds to the crime problem. The drug corresponds to adding police: it reduces harmful effects without addressing the underlying problem completely. Curing the disease corresponds to getting at the root causes of crime.
Both arguments then reject the measure for falling short of that complete solution. But a drug can be useful because it reduces the disease's harmful effects even if it doesn't cure the disease. In the same way, a measure could help prevent crime without eliminating its root causes. The lack of a complete cure doesn't, by itself, justify abandoning the partial help.
- E
This also mentions crime, but it doesn't reject a particular useful measure because that measure is incomplete. Instead, difficulty fully understanding the causes motivates a search for other ways to combat the problem. The conclusion is to investigate more responses, not to stop using one that offers partial help.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.