PrepTest 115, Section 4, Question 26
Commentator: Because of teacher hiring freezes, the quality(13 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in which(13 more words not shown)
- ABecause Raoul is(20 more words not shown)
- BGiven that over(27 more words not shown)
- CSince funding levels(19 more words not shown)
- DSince there is(15 more words not shown)
- EThe starter in(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if education stays exactly as good as it is now?
I might initially question why a hiring freeze would prevent improvement. But the argument gives us that lack of improvement as its starting point. Even if we accept it, the conclusion still goes too far. Not getting better doesn't mean getting worse. Staying at the same level is a third possibility.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, I'd make a matching example: the temperature won't rise, so it must fall. It could stay the same instead. Look for that same forced choice between improvement and deterioration, with the unchanged outcome left out. The confidence matters too. Saying the worse outcome might happen is different from saying it surely will.
Working the answers
- A
This is close: ruling out pepperoni doesn't force Raoul to choose cheese. He could choose a mushroom pizza, another vegetarian meal, or no lunch. So A also overlooks alternatives.
But it selects between meal categories rather than treating the absence of change in one direction as proof of change in the opposite direction. D reproduces the original's increase, decrease, and unchanged possibilities more exactly. A shares the broad mistake without matching that specific structure as closely.
- B
Failure to prove the conjecture doesn't establish that disproof is more likely; it could remain unresolved. That gives B a related concern about an overlooked possibility. But B makes probability claims about eventual proof and disproof, whereas the original accepts a definite absence of improvement and concludes deterioration is certain. B doesn't preserve either the directional change or the strength of that final claim.
- C
This gets close to the subject and direction: no greater harmony could be followed by greater discord. But the conclusion says society may become more discordant. That leaves open the possibility that it stays the same.
Our objection is to the certainty that education will deteriorate. If C said society must become more discordant, it would reproduce that objection. Its actual wording avoids the commitment we're trying to match.
- DCorrect
The storm plays the role of the hiring freeze. The premise that temperature cannot rise corresponds to the premise that education will not improve. The conclusion that temperature must fall corresponds to the conclusion that education will surely deteriorate.
Both arguments leave out staying the same. Temperature could remain constant even if it cannot rise, just as educational quality could remain constant without improving. D matches the precise relationships and the unwarranted certainty of the conclusion.
- E
If it is impossible for the car to start, it follows that it will not start. We don't have to investigate whether a broken starter really establishes that impossibility; E gives it as a premise. The conclusion doesn't add a decline or worsening that the premise leaves open. It simply states what the asserted impossibility rules out.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.