PrepTest 114, Section 4, Question 2
Ms. Smith: I am upset that my son's(76 more words not shown)
The principal's response to Ms.(14 more words not shown)
- AIt makes a(15 more words not shown)
- BIt suggests that(17 more words not shown)
- CIt does not(18 more words not shown)
- DIt assumes that(17 more words not shown)
- EIt attempts to(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
But you can let my child go to recess.
That's the response I'd give the principal. Ms. Smith isn't asking why innocent people sometimes experience problems caused by others. She is asking why the school is imposing this particular penalty on a child who didn't throw the raisins.
The traffic comparison doesn't answer her. A driver stuck behind the crash can't simply be excused from the traffic because the driver is innocent. The road is still blocked. But the school can decide which children lose recess. It could punish the children responsible and let the others go.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, that is the difference to keep in view: the principal uses an unavoidable consequence in the traffic example to defend a punishment the school could avoid imposing. The fact that innocent people sometimes suffer doesn't explain why the school should choose to make them suffer here.
Working the answers
- A
The principal doesn't claim that all the children threw raisins or were otherwise at fault. In fact, the analogy allows for uninvolved people to suffer. A criticism of an unsupported claim that everyone is guilty would target an argument the principal hasn't made.
- B
An analogy needn't claim equal amounts of inconvenience. A traffic jam might be far more disruptive than losing recess, or less disruptive, without resolving our concern. The comparison is supposed to show why uninvolved people bear consequences. Its weakness concerns whether those consequences can be avoided, not whether they are equally unpleasant.
- CCorrect
This identifies the difference our response exposed. In the traffic example, allowing innocent drivers to proceed doesn't make the obstruction disappear. In the classroom, the school can choose not to withhold recess from innocent children.
So the unavoidable delay doesn't justify treating the chosen penalty as something that simply has to happen. The principal needs a reason for the school's decision, not an example of a different situation in which people suffer regardless of fault.
- D
The response doesn't insist that Ms. Smith's son is guilty. It compares him with drivers who weren't involved in the accident. The principal can accept his innocence and still defend the group punishment. Our criticism should address that defense, not accuse the principal of rejecting a fact the response accommodates.
- E
The analogy concerns the relevant issue: people suffering because of what others did. It is a poor analogy because of a meaningful difference between the situations. That isn't the same as introducing unrelated facts about the cafeteria incident to confuse the discussion. We should identify the actual defect, as C does, rather than describe an irrelevant diversion that never occurs.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.