PrepTest 114, Section 1, Question 8
Pundit: The only airline providing service for our(61 more words not shown)
The pundit's reasoning is most(13 more words not shown)
- Aincreasing the number(17 more words not shown)
- Bsuspending service and(10 more words not shown)
- Cthe town officials(12 more words not shown)
- Dground transportation is(7 more words not shown)
- Eif the town(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I want to know whether we can keep the airline, not whether the officials set a good example.
Losing the town's only service could be a serious inconvenience, especially if another airport is far away. The officials propose using the flights more often so the airline will stay. I'd want to know whether that could work. Has the decision already been settled? Would the airline trust an increase that might disappear as soon as it agreed to stay? Those are practical questions about the plan.
The pundit gives a different objection: the officials drove to a conference. Perhaps the conference was close enough that flying didn't make sense. But even if they ignored their own advice, that doesn't show the advice is bad. Residents could still have a reason to buy tickets if doing so helped preserve a service they valued.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks which unjustified assumption drives the pundit's rejection. I'd look for the move from 'they didn't follow their advice' to 'there is no reason for anyone else to follow it.' Their behavior doesn't settle whether the plan is worth trying.
Working the answers
- A
Whether increased ticket sales would make the route viable is relevant to evaluating the officials' plan. But the pundit doesn't reject the plan after calculating sales or prices. The reason given is the officials' decision to drive. A concerns the economics we might want to investigate, not the assumption behind the argument actually made.
- B
The pundit doesn't lay out those as the airline's only options. The argument dismisses the recommendation by pointing to the officials' conduct. Other options might matter to a discussion of airline strategy, but B doesn't identify the link used to reject this advice.
- C
We aren't told who paid for the conference trip. The criticism is that the officials drove while urging residents to fly, not that they misused public money. Whether the money came from taxpayers or their own pockets doesn't supply the reasoning the pundit uses.
- D
The argument doesn't compare transportation prices. Driving could be cheaper or more expensive, and we'd still need to ask why this one trip makes the recommendation worthless. D doesn't explain the move from the officials' conduct to the rejection of their advice.
- ECorrect
The pundit treats the officials' failure to follow their recommendation as a reason the recommendation isn't worth following. But someone can give useful advice and fail to take it. Even if the officials behaved inconsistently, residents might still benefit from using the airline more often. The pundit needs to address that possible benefit, rather than treating the officials' behavior as decisive.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.