PrepTest 116, Section 2, Question 24
Politician: The law should not require people to(36 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AMarielle and Pat(34 more words not shown)
- BAny corporation should(51 more words not shown)
- CAmusement parks should(47 more words not shown)
- DIt should be(44 more words not shown)
- EVanessa should be(35 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why should a rule for motorcycles settle the rule for cars? A seat belt doesn't play the same obvious role in those two settings. The politician needs more than a comparison with another activity to show what the law should allow.
We are told that riding a motorcycle would be more dangerous even with a seat belt than riding in a car without one. Accept that comparison for this question. The conclusion is still a recommendation about what should be permitted in cars, based on what people are permitted to do on motorcycles.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, I'd start by looking for another argument that uses permission in one setting to justify permission in another. Then check what the comparison is actually doing. Merely mentioning two activities or making a policy recommendation won't be enough.
Working the answers
- A
Let's make the comparison more precise. The politician points to a permitted activity that would remain more dangerous even with an added precaution. A instead proposes replacing a currently allowed dessert with snacks and says that substitution would improve nutrition. It never makes the matching comparison in which the other activity remains worse even after a protective change. There is an argument about what to allow, but the pieces don't line up.
- B
The direction of the comparison is different. A stressed employee may be less productive than an unstressed employee with a cold. B uses permission for the cold sufferer to justify time off for the person who may have the greater productivity problem. The politician uses permission for the more dangerous activity to justify permission for the less dangerous one. B also moves from what some corporations allow to what every corporation should allow.
- CCorrect
Standing on the roller coaster corresponds to riding in a car without a seat belt. Standing at a cliff edge corresponds to riding a motorcycle without one: the activity already permitted. Sitting at the cliff edge corresponds to adding a seat belt to the motorcycle: a precaution that still leaves the comparison activity more dangerous.
The same conclusion is drawn from the same faulty comparison: because we allow the more dangerous activity, we should allow this less dangerous one. But perhaps both activities deserve restrictions. Existing permission for cliff-edge behavior doesn't establish that standing on a moving roller coaster should be allowed, just as motorcycle permission doesn't settle the seat-belt requirement for cars.
- D
This recommends prohibition, using the claim that another activity should also be prohibited. It does not start with something already permitted and use that permission to argue for allowing a less dangerous activity. The comparison also runs toward banning a more harmful activity, whereas the original moves toward allowing a less harmful one.
- E
This compares two places where a dog might run without a leash and says they differ only in size. It doesn't say the activity in one place remains more dangerous even with an added precaution. Also, Vanessa's current practice in her yard isn't explicitly a statement that she is permitted to do it. The shared leash detail doesn't supply the original's structure.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.