PrepTest 117, Section 2, Question 25
The first bicycle, the Draisienne, was invented in(43 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without giving(9 more words not shown)
- Bfails to recognize(15 more words not shown)
- Coffers no support(11 more words not shown)
- Dposes a question(8 more words not shown)
- Eignores, without giving(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the early bicycle just wasn't very good. A new invention can attract attention as a novelty without being useful enough to keep using. Suppose the first design was awkward to ride, and later designs worked better. That could explain a brief fad, a disappearance, and an eventual return without any change in people's values.
The author gives us a rule: new technology is accepted only when it fits society's values. Let's accept that requirement. It still doesn't tell us that fitting those values is the only thing technology needs to succeed. A bicycle could fit people's values and fail because of a problem with the bicycle itself.
What we’re looking for
That is why the conclusion moves too quickly. The change in acceptance might reflect a change in values, but the author hasn't shown that it must. For the flaw question, look for the overlooked alternatives: what if something other than values explains the bicycle's initial failure?
Working the answers
- A
“Never” goes too far. The argument doesn't need a rule saying that no fad ever indicates genuine acceptance. It considers this particular bicycle's early popularity and later disappearance. The problem we identified concerns why the bicycle failed, not a universal claim about what all fads mean.
- B
The author is treating the later reappearance as something that needs to be explained by changed values. Genuine acceptance in the 1860s fits that account. The argument isn't overlooking that possibility; it relies on a contrast between the bicycle's early failure and its later reception.
- C
We are given the first bicycle's identity as a fact. Asking for proof that the Draisienne really was first doesn't address the move from the bicycle's history to a required change in values. Even granting the stated invention date and everything else about its early reception, the alternative explanation about its design remains.
- D
The question is directly relevant. “Why was this?” asks why bicycles briefly became popular and then practically disappeared until the 1860s. The conclusion offers a change in values as the explanation. The problem is the confidence in that particular answer, not that the question has nothing to do with it.
- ECorrect
The author doesn't consider other reasons for the initial failure. Perhaps the design was impractical, and an improved version later made cycling appealing. That's a hypothetical explanation, not an additional historical fact we need to establish.
The rule about values doesn't rule it out. A requirement can be satisfied while something else still prevents success. Think of the bicycle as needing both social acceptance and a usable design: the first could remain the same while the second changed. The author therefore hasn't established that society's values must have changed.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.