PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 15
Ruth: To become a politician, a person should(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AThe response simply(13 more words not shown)
- BThe response fails(16 more words not shown)
- CThe response attributes(15 more words not shown)
- DThe response fails(12 more words not shown)
- EThe response fails(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Ruth thinks varied experience should be required for becoming a politician because it helps people understand the need for compromise. I would still ask why that understanding is important for the job. Ruth seems to expect us to accept that it is valuable.
But Stephanie raises a different objection, and it doesn't match Ruth's claim. Ruth says varied experience should be required. Stephanie responds as though Ruth had said varied experience is enough to make someone worthy of public trust. “You need this” isn't the same as “This is all you need.”
Imagine a person with many different experiences who is also dishonest. Ruth could agree that the person doesn't deserve public trust while continuing to favor an experience requirement for politicians. Other qualifications could matter too. Stephanie hasn't refuted that position by showing that experience alone doesn't guarantee trustworthiness.
What we’re looking for
The question asks about the flaw in Stephanie's response. So set aside my earlier question about why understanding compromise matters. Our prediction should focus on what Stephanie does: she turns Ruth's proposed requirement into a much stronger guarantee and attacks the guarantee.
Working the answers
- A
These aren't simply opposite positions. Ruth can favor an experience requirement and also agree that experience alone isn't enough for public trust. The flaw isn't merely that Stephanie fails to give reasons against Ruth; it's that she argues against a claim Ruth didn't make.
- B
Stephanie doesn't say experience is useless or has no benefit. A quality could be valuable without being enough by itself. For example, varied experience might help someone understand other people while still leaving us with concerns about honesty. Denying that experience guarantees trustworthiness doesn't deny every benefit it could have.
- CCorrect
“Experience alone makes someone worthy of trust” is much easier to criticize than “Experience should be required.” Stephanie attributes the stronger position to Ruth even though Ruth only proposes the requirement. Her response therefore attacks a more vulnerable claim than the one Ruth actually expresses.
- D
Nothing in the response turns on whether an experience is personal or professional. Whatever kind of varied experience Ruth has in mind, Stephanie still changes a requirement into something supposedly sufficient by itself. Dividing experience into categories wouldn't fix that misrepresentation.
- E
Stephanie doesn't assert that flexibility is unimportant. She says varied experience isn't enough to establish trustworthiness. Even if understanding compromise involves flexibility, denying that one qualification settles everything doesn't deny that qualification's value. E attributes an additional position to Stephanie that she never states.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.