PrepTest 114, Section 4, Question 17
Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the(33 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in the(15 more words not shown)
- ADo not vote(16 more words not shown)
- BDo not put(20 more words not shown)
- CThe previous witness's(15 more words not shown)
- DBoard member Timm's(26 more words not shown)
- EDr. Wasow's analysis(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Mullen would be among the people paying more. Why is that a reason to dismiss the proposal?
If anything, willingness to bear a cost might make me more interested in hearing Mullen's reasons. It doesn't prove those reasons are good, but it certainly doesn't settle that they aren't. We still need to examine the tax proposal itself.
The argument instead uses Mullen's membership in the affected group against the proposal. For the parallel flaw, I'd look for that same arrangement: a person recommends a restriction or burden on a group, belongs to that group, and is dismissed on that basis. Imagine a baseball player proposing a restriction on baseball players. 'Don't consider it; you're a player yourself' would leave the merits unaddressed.
What we’re looking for
The direction matters. Our proposer is in the group that would bear the burden, not a group singled out for a benefit.
Working the answers
- A
Smith belongs to the affected group, but the proposed subsidy helps that group. Mullen's proposal imposes higher taxes on the group to which Mullen belongs. A would be closer if Smith proposed an added burden on working parents. The common personal connection isn't enough when the proposal's effect points the other way.
- BCorrect
The public-smoking ban restricts smokers, and Dr. Han is a smoker. The response tells us to dismiss the proposal because Han belongs to the group the proposal would restrict. That matches the higher taxes on the rich and Mullen's own wealth.
In neither case does belonging to the affected group answer the proposal's merits. Han could smoke heavily and have sound reasons for limiting where people smoke, just as Mullen could earn large profits and have sound reasons for the proposed tax change.
- C
This questions a witness's credibility by pointing to a history of dishonest conduct. The original concerns whether to consider a policy proposal, not whether to believe a factual report. C also lacks the key relationship between the proposer and a group that would bear the proposed burden.
- D
This differs in two ways. The proposal would benefit the affected group by raising salaries, whereas Mullen proposes an added burden. Also, the person in that group is Timm's daughter, not Timm. The suspected personal connection doesn't reproduce the particular relationship in the original.
- E
This raises a question about whether expertise in designing factory buildings carries over to analyzing a bridge. It doesn't involve a proposed restriction on a group to which Wasow belongs. A challenge to someone's relevant experience is different from dismissing a proposal because the proposer would be affected by it.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.