PrepTest 121, Section 4, Question 4
My suspicion that there is some truth to(13 more words not shown)
The flawed pattern of reasoning(15 more words not shown)
- AProfessor Smith was(17 more words not shown)
- BI have come(28 more words not shown)
- CQuantum mechanics seems(17 more words not shown)
- DMost mechanical engineers(20 more words not shown)
- EFor many years(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
People can believe something and be wrong about it. Telling me that most of the physicians you asked believe in astrology doesn't, by itself, confirm that astrology contains some truth.
The speaker moves from a report about people's beliefs to a claim about the world. Even a widely shared belief could be mistaken. Imagine asking a group who all accept the same mistaken idea: collecting more votes for that idea wouldn't turn it into a fact.
What we’re looking for
The question wants an argument with the most similar flawed reasoning. I'd initially look for the same move: most of the people consulted believe a claim, so the speaker accepts the claim as true. Then we'll need to compare the choices carefully enough to see which one matches the particular people and subject involved.
Working the answers
- A
This rejects Smith's economic theories because Smith committed tax evasion. A person's wrongdoing doesn't by itself show that the person's theories are false, but that isn't our original move. We need an argument accepting a claim because a group believes it, not rejecting a claim because its proponent behaved badly.
- BCorrect
Most of the biology professors consulted think several government programs are wasteful, so the speaker concludes that those programs are wasteful. The professors' belief corresponds to the physicians' belief; wasteful programs correspond to truth in astrology.
There is a further match that matters when we compare C: these people have expertise in a field different from the disputed subject. Being a biologist doesn't itself make someone an authority on government programs, just as being a physician doesn't itself make someone an authority on astrology.
- C
This initially resembles our prediction: most of a group accept a theory, and that acceptance is offered as evidence for the theory. But look at the group's expertise. Physicists are evaluating a physical theory. That connection is missing when physicians assess astrology and when biologists assess government programs.
Expert agreement still isn't a guarantee of truth. The point is that C cites expertise directly relevant to the claim, so it doesn't reproduce the original's particular weakness as closely as B does.
- D
The conclusion concerns what the engineers do, not whether their belief is true. They say avoiding meat is healthier; the speaker concludes that they actually avoid meat. People can believe a habit would be healthy and fail to follow it. To match the original, we'd want the conclusion that avoiding meat really is healthier because the engineers say so.
- E
Reports of seeing unidentified objects aren't the same as a majority of a consulted group endorsing a claim. Nor is an unidentified object automatically evidence of an extraterrestrial society trying to contact us. E jumps from reported observations to an explanation of them. It doesn't match the specific appeal to the beliefs of people with unrelated expertise.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.