PrepTest 121, Section 4, Question 17
A large amount of rainfall in April and(31 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(7 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(15 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(8 more words not shown)
- Cignores the possibility(13 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(18 more words not shown)
- Edraws a conclusion(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We can't stop the rain. Does that mean we can't do anything about the mosquitoes?
Accept the connection we're given: heavy spring rain typically means more mosquitoes and a greater threat of encephalitis. The problem comes when the author treats control over the weather as our only possible way to reduce that threat.
What about mosquito nets? What about insect repellent, reducing contact with mosquitoes, or a treatment that could prevent the disease? Those are possibilities to investigate, not facts this passage establishes. They show what the argument has left out. We might leave the rainfall unchanged and still interfere with what happens afterward.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks us to describe that oversight. We don't need to deny the rain's effect or promise to eliminate the disease. We just need to recognize that being unable to control one contributing factor doesn't establish that we cannot reduce the danger at all.
Working the answers
- A
The passage gives us the rain–mosquito–disease connection as a premise. It doesn't argue that rain causes the problem merely because rain comes first. Our objection accepts that connection and asks what else people could do about the threat.
- B
Whether a decrease would be desirable is separate from whether a decrease is possible. The conclusion says people cannot reduce the threat; it doesn't recommend pursuing a supposedly desirable outcome. We can challenge that claim about our options without debating whether avoiding the disease is good.
- CCorrect
The threat could depend on more than the weather. For example, mosquito nets might reduce exposure even when rainfall and mosquito numbers remain high. The author overlooks possible influences we can control and jumps from “We cannot change this factor” to “We cannot reduce the threat.”
- D
This would fit an argument saying that without rain, encephalitis cannot occur. That isn't our conclusion. Our author says we cannot decrease the threat because we cannot change the weather. Confusing a contributing factor with the only possible source of a threat is different from overlooking other ways to reduce that threat.
- E
Moving from an actual fact to a claim about possibility isn't automatically a mistake. If there is water in my bottle, then it is possible for my bottle to contain water. More specifically, our premise already concerns what people cannot do: change the weather. The problem is extending that limit to every possible way of reducing the disease threat.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.