PrepTest 122, Section 1, Question 1
Because the statement "all gray rabbits are rabbits"(17 more words not shown)
The reasoning above is flawed(6 more words not shown)
- Athe relationship between(21 more words not shown)
- Bthe relationship between(21 more words not shown)
- Cthe relationship between(25 more words not shown)
- Dnot all rabbits(2 more words not shown)
- Enot all criminals(2 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being suspected of a crime doesn't mean you committed it. That is already enough to make this analogy fall apart.
A gray rabbit really is a rabbit. “Gray” tells us something about the color of an animal we've identified as a rabbit. But “suspected” tells us what someone believes or is investigating. The person suspected of a crime might be innocent. Those two descriptions don't work the same way just because they appear in the same place in a sentence.
Try keeping the animal and changing the description: are all suspected rabbits rabbits? Imagine seeing something with long ears in the distance and thinking it's a rabbit. If it turns out to be a dog, our suspicion was mistaken. Suspecting that something belongs to a group doesn't put it in that group.
What we’re looking for
The flaw answer should explain that difference between the two relationships. We aren't objecting that rabbits and criminals are different subjects. An analogy can compare different subjects. We're objecting that the first description guarantees membership in its group while the second doesn't.
Working the answers
- A
This compares criminals with rabbits, then compares being suspected with being gray. Those aren't the two relationships the argument treats as alike. We need to compare a gray rabbit with a rabbit, then a suspected criminal with a criminal. Merely rearranging the familiar words doesn't describe the mistake.
- B
Why compare being suspected with being a rabbit? The argument never claims that those two things have a particular relationship. B splits up the descriptions and cross-matches their pieces instead of explaining why being a suspected criminal doesn't establish being a criminal.
- CCorrect
This keeps both relationships intact. Every gray rabbit belongs to the group of rabbits. A suspected criminal, however, might not belong to the group of criminals. The argument assumes that what works for the first description also works for the second, even though suspicion can be mistaken.
- D
Some rabbits may be black or white. That doesn't challenge the claim about gray rabbits: all of those animals are still rabbits. The argument never needs every rabbit to be gray.
- E
Some criminals might escape suspicion entirely. But we're concerned with the people who are suspected, and whether they must be criminals. E goes the other way, asking whether criminals must be suspected. It leaves our objection unanswered.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.