PrepTest 122, Section 2, Question 26
The obesity invariably associated with some high-fat diets(35 more words not shown)
The questionable pattern of reasoning(15 more words not shown)
- AElectrical storms are(23 more words not shown)
- BThe impression that(36 more words not shown)
- CThe disorientation observed(29 more words not shown)
- DStock market crashes(28 more words not shown)
- EThe preponderance of(31 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why can't these people be missing nutrients and also consuming too many calories?
Let's accept the passage's explanation of their obesity: missing nutrients are responsible, and excessive calories aren't. We aren't being asked to judge that claim against outside knowledge about diet. But ruling something out as the cause doesn't show that it isn't happening. The people could consume too many calories even if, in this account, those calories aren't what causes their obesity.
What we’re looking for
That is the distinction the conclusion loses. It moves from “excess calories aren't causing this outcome” to “these people aren't consuming excess calories.” For the parallel flaw, look for another argument that identifies the cause of a problem, rules out a different proposed cause, and then concludes that the ruled-out factor isn't present at all. Our objection is that both conditions could be present, not that we should reject the premise and insist both caused the result.
Working the answers
- A
This moves from a correlation between storms and pressure drops to a claim about what causes the storms. Our argument starts by giving us the cause; the unsupported step comes afterward, when it denies the presence of a different factor. A makes a different mistake at a different point in the reasoning.
- B
The first sentence is promising: it attributes an impression to commercials rather than stereotyping. To match the original, the conclusion would need to say stereotyping isn't occurring. Instead, it makes a claim about beer drinkers being fans of sports programs.
That also isn't the same as the initial impression about sports viewers being beer drinkers. B changes which group it talks about, and it never makes the needed move from “not the cause” to “not present.”
- CCorrect
Disorientation corresponds to obesity. Disrupted daylight exposure corresponds to missing nutrients, the identified cause. Sleep deprivation corresponds to excess calories, the factor excluded as the cause.
Then C concludes that the pilots aren't sleep-deprived at all. Why couldn't they be sleep-deprived as well as exposed to disrupted daylight? Even accepting that sleep deprivation didn't cause the disorientation, we can't conclude the pilots aren't experiencing it. That is exactly the original's move from rejecting a causal explanation to denying the factor's existence.
- D
Panic is the factor excluded as the cause of crashes. A matching conclusion would say that panic isn't occurring. D instead says economic downturns cannot be accurately predicted. That is a different claim about prediction, not a denial that the excluded causal factor is present.
- E
Intelligence is the proposed cause that this answer rejects. To make our mistake, E would then conclude that the mathematicians aren't intelligent. Instead, it concludes that most programmers have mathematical training. That keeps the subject on the training background; it doesn't deny the presence of the factor ruled out as the cause.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.