PrepTest 123, Section 3, Question 20
We should accept the proposal to demolish the(39 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning exhibited by(16 more words not shown)
- AOur country should(48 more words not shown)
- BDocuments of importance(38 more words not shown)
- CYou should have(36 more words not shown)
- DThe committee should(35 more words not shown)
- EOne should not(44 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why tear down the train station? I want a reason about the station, not just a complaint about the people who want to save it.
The historical society supposedly has no commitment to long-term economic well-being. Grant that criticism for the moment. Couldn't its members still be right about keeping the building? Maybe the station attracts tourists. Maybe its historical value is worth preserving. Their priorities don't settle whether demolition is a good idea.
We do get a further reason: preserving old buildings can get in the way of new development, and development matters for economic health. Okay, but what would replace this station? If nothing useful is planned, tearing it down won't magically create the economic benefits of a new project. Even if there is a plan, we'd still want to compare its benefits with what we lose by demolishing the station.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for another argument with a similar flaw. I'd concentrate on the attack on the opponents: “We should take this option because the people opposing it have the wrong priorities.” The problem is that those people could have the criticized priorities and still be right about the proposal. We need to find that same misuse of a criticism, even if the new argument has nothing to do with buildings.
Working the answers
- A
This recommends spending money on culturally significant art despite disagreement about which works deserve that description. Where does it attack the motives or priorities of the people who disagree? It doesn't. We have a proposal and disagreement, but the criticism of the opponents is missing. Sharing those first two features isn't enough to match the flaw.
- B
The reason to preserve the documents is that losing them would damage the historical record. That's a claim about the consequences of the proposal. No group of opponents is discredited, so nothing corresponds to the argument's treatment of the historical society. The shared historical subject is a distraction.
- CCorrect
Start by matching the people and proposals. The author recommends haircuts no more than once a month, just as the original author recommends accepting demolition. The beauticians recommend twice a month, so they play the historical society's role: they favor the opposing choice.
Why dismiss their advice? Because they want more business. But wanting more business doesn't make their advice wrong. They could profit from frequent haircuts and still be right that those haircuts are a good idea. Likewise, the historical society could have the criticized economic priorities and still have a sound reason to preserve the station.
The attacks aren't word-for-word identical. The society is accused of not caring about long-term economic well-being; the beauticians are accused of seeking business for themselves. That's a reason to look carefully, not a reason to reject C. Both arguments use criticism of the opposing advisers to support a recommendation without establishing that the criticism makes their advice mistaken.
- D
Slow down on what the committee is being told to do. The residents oppose construction. The author recommends postponing construction to avoid alienating those residents. That recommendation accommodates their opposition.
Our original author does the opposite: discredit the historical society and approve what it opposes. D doesn't attack the residents' motives or priorities; it gives the committee an obligation to respect their concerns. The residents therefore play a different role from the historical society, even though both are groups discussing a building project.
- E
Interest can make a debt grow, so the author advises against unnecessary borrowing. Whether that consequence justifies such broad advice is a separate question. E never introduces opposing advisers or attacks their motives. It offers a consequence of borrowing as its reason, so it doesn't match the flaw we're looking for.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.