PrepTest 121, Section 1, Question 23
Statistical analysis is a common tool for explanation(46 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AComputer modeling is(51 more words not shown)
- BThe only way(62 more words not shown)
- CThe best way(50 more words not shown)
- DTo determine which(59 more words not shown)
- EA good way(52 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Losing one tool doesn't mean losing every way to explain something.
The passage says statistical analysis requires events that can be replicated in every detail. That is a restrictive rule, but let's accept it for this argument. Human mental events don't recur that way, so the author rules out using statistical analysis to explain them. So far, we're following the stated restriction.
Then the conclusion rules out the entire physical sciences. Why? Statistical analysis was introduced as a common tool, not the only tool. Perhaps a different kind of scientific explanation could work. The author hasn't ruled that out.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, keep three roles straight: a method, a requirement for using that method, and a case that fails the requirement. The mistake comes when the author expands “this method won't work for that case” into “no explanation in this field can work for that case.” That's the jump to match.
Working the answers
- A
Computer modeling corresponds to statistical analysis, and predictability corresponds to being replicable in detail. Wind resistance fails that requirement. But the conclusion stays with the specific method: computer modeling cannot explain it. That follows from the stated restriction.
To make our mistake, A would need to conclude that wind resistance cannot be explained at all, or by any method in the relevant field. It never makes that expansion. The important difference is the scope of the conclusion, not whether the answer uses the same nouns throughout.
- B
This explicitly calls its method the only way to explain the effect. The original never establishes that exclusivity. B also confuses the creator of the music with the human experiencing it: computer-generated music can still affect a person's emotional state. That's a different mistake from ruling out all methods after ruling out one.
- C
Calling an account the best doesn't make it the only one, but the more important difference is the conclusion. C moves from difficulty discovering an object's composition to a claim that its color has nothing to do with light interacting with matter. Failure to obtain information doesn't rule out that physical relationship. Our argument instead rules out all explanations because one method is unavailable.
- D
Being unable to determine which explanation is correct doesn't mean none is likely to be correct. An explanation could be right even if we cannot establish that it is. D confuses access to evidence with the truth of a proposed account. It doesn't identify one usable method, lose that method, and then exclude every other method.
- ECorrect
The coherent narrative is the method, just as statistical analysis is the method in the original. Knowing many details is the requirement, corresponding to being able to replicate events. The very ancient events lack the needed details, just as human mental events lack the required repeatability.
That could rule out constructing this kind of narrative. It doesn't rule out every historical explanation. Perhaps archaeological evidence could support another kind of account without supplying a detailed narrative. E makes the same unsupported expansion from losing one method to losing the whole field's ability to explain the cases.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.