PrepTest 120, Section 4, Question 17
People who have never been asked to do(46 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in which(15 more words not shown)
- AAnybody who has(30 more words not shown)
- BAnyone who discovers(33 more words not shown)
- CAny person who(35 more words not shown)
- DBy definition, a(41 more words not shown)
- EPeople who have(40 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe someone pushed Alex and he still didn't rise to the challenge. The rule tells us that people who have never been pushed beyond what comes easily never do all they can. Accept that rule. It still doesn't tell us that everyone who falls short has never been pushed. Alex might have been challenged repeatedly and failed to make the effort.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, keep the roles straight: one circumstance guarantees a result; we see the result in Alex; then we assume that circumstance must explain it. We need another argument that treats one route to an outcome as the only route. Matching the words “never” or “not” won't be enough.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Having a dog guarantees knowing the value of companionship, just as never being pushed guarantees falling short in the original rule. Alicia knows the value of companionship, just as Alex has fallen short. The argument then concludes Alicia has a dog, just as the original concludes Alex has never been pushed.
But Alicia might have learned companionship from a child, a friend, or someone else. The stated route isn't necessarily the only route. Both arguments start with the result and wrongly treat it as proof of the circumstance that was sufficient to produce it.
- B
This rule starts with discovering something new and leads to having examined every possible solution. Fran hasn't discovered something new, and the conclusion says Fran hasn't examined all the solutions. That is also flawed, but it starts by denying the rule's starting circumstance. Our argument instead finds the rule's result and works backward to its starting circumstance.
- C
This is sound. The rule says that without sufficient challenges, someone won't accomplish everything possible. Jill does accomplish everything possible. So Jill can't be someone without sufficient challenges; otherwise the rule would say she falls short. The familiar subject matter doesn't make this the same reasoning as the flawed argument about Alex.
- D
This applies a definition. A closed plane figure bounded by straight lines qualifies as a polygon, and the pictured object has those features. The conclusion follows from the rule. We need a flawed inference, so this isn't our match.
- E
The terms change along the way. The rule concerns never having lost something one cannot afford to lose and being lax about securing property. Jon is only described as lax about property he can afford to lose, yet the conclusion says he has never lost anything at all. Those changes prevent a clean match. A keeps the same descriptions in the rule, the individual case, and the conclusion.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.