PrepTest 118, Section 4, Question 20
Polling data reveal that an overwhelming majority of(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe concern about(37 more words not shown)
- BMany ten-year-olds dream(27 more words not shown)
- CMost dentists recommend(29 more words not shown)
- DA large percentage(43 more words not shown)
- EMost people cannot(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What does a group of nine-year-olds tell us about smokers more generally?
The children recognize cigarette logos, but fewer than 1 percent of those who recognize them currently smoke. They could know the logos from advertising or from seeing adults smoke. Recognizing a brand doesn't mean they already use it.
The author takes that narrow observation and announces little or no connection between recognizing the logos and smoking. I'm not ready to extend a finding about this young group to everyone the conclusion covers. We need to be careful about who was studied and how much the result can establish.
What we’re looking for
This is a parallel-flaw question. My initial prediction is an argument using a limited sample to dismiss a connection more broadly. I'd look for a narrow observation followed by an unjustifiably broad “there's no problem” or “there's no effect.” The particular limitation may become clearer when we compare the choices.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The limitation here is the period of observation: three months without observed effects becomes a dismissal of concern about long-term effects. That's a useful way to understand the original too. The nine-year-olds overwhelmingly aren't smoking now, but that doesn't tell us whether their familiarity with the brands will be connected with smoking later.
Map the roles: recognition of cigarette logos corresponds to mercury exposure; smoking corresponds to harm to dolphins. A limited early observation finds little or no effect, and the conclusion dismisses the broader connection. Neither argument has observed enough to exclude effects that develop later.
This isn't exactly the narrow-population example I initially expected, but it captures why the original sample is inadequate. The amount of mercury isn't the mismatch: A discusses small quantities in both the concern and the study. The three-month window versus long-term effects is the problem.
- B
This predicts that children won't pursue acting because their parents discourage that career. It doesn't observe the absence of an effect within a limited sample or window and use that observation to dismiss the effect more generally. Whether parental discouragement supports the prediction is a different question.
- C
This treats dentists' recommendations as evidence that fluoride is more effective than avoiding sweets. Dentists might recommend fluoride more often because it is easier for patients to use, for example. That's a question about what recommendations reveal about effectiveness, not a limited observation being stretched to rule out a later effect.
- D
This is tempting because it also concludes there is little or no connection. But it follows exercise across people's lives. Its problem is substituting lifespan for good health: exercise could improve how healthy those years are without increasing their number. That is different from using an observation made too early to dismiss a possible later effect.
- E
This uses knowledge of political issues to dismiss concern about not knowing representatives' names. We might question whether one form of knowledge makes the other unimportant, but it isn't the same limited-observation problem. No short period without an effect is being used to rule out a long-term connection.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.