PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 12
Politician: The huge amounts of money earned by(87 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the politician's(12 more words not shown)
- Afails to justify(17 more words not shown)
- Battacks the character(11 more words not shown)
- Cfails to justify(13 more words not shown)
- Dtreats the absence(28 more words not shown)
- Eillicitly draws a(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Oil companies don't have to beat every other industry to make enough money to explore for oil.
The politician begins with people who suspect collusion because oil companies earn so much. High profits alone wouldn't establish collusion. But rejecting that suspicion wouldn't establish the politician's opposite position either. We still need a reason to think regulation has become excessive.
The proposed test is whether companies can make enough profit to motivate risky exploration. Fine—then tell us whether their profits are enough for that. Instead, we're told their profits aren't the highest of all industries. What if oil is second or third and still earns enough to make those investments worthwhile? Being below the top doesn't mean being below the required amount.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, that's the gap: the politician treats “not the highest” as though it meant “not enough.” Unless the companies need the very highest profits to undertake exploration, the comparison doesn't establish the excessive burden the politician claims.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This names the missing link between the two standards. The argument needs profits below first place to count as insufficient to motivate the risky investments. But the politician hasn't established that only the industry's highest possible rank would supply enough incentive. Oil companies could earn less than another industry and still have the profits the stated rule calls for.
- B
The politician doesn't attack the companies' character. The argument concerns how regulations affect profits and whether those profits support exploration. Calling companies dishonest or uncaring would be a different kind of argument, and it isn't what happens here.
- C
There is no observed correlation between two events from which the politician infers that one caused the other. We are given a rule about regulation and adequate profits, followed by a comparison with other industries. The mistake is treating a lower rank as insufficient profit, not turning a reported correlation into a cause.
- D
The passage supplies data showing that oil profits aren't the highest. That isn't a mere lack of evidence that they are the highest. We can accept the data and still object that the industry's ranking doesn't tell us whether its profits are sufficient for exploration.
- E
The politician doesn't select an unusual company and use it to represent the industry. The data concern the oil industry itself. Nor are we given a reason to think a particular example is atypical. E describes a sampling problem that this argument doesn't present.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.