PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 15
Humans are supposedly rational: in other words, they(60 more words not shown)
The reasoning above is flawed(3 more words not shown)
- Arelies crucially on(6 more words not shown)
- Btakes for granted(9 more words not shown)
- Cneglects to show(14 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without offering(9 more words not shown)
- Efails to recognize(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being able to think carefully doesn't mean we always do it.
The author defines rationality as a capacity for well-considered thinking and behavior. Then we get examples of humans behaving badly: polluting air and water and damaging the soil that feeds us. I'm willing to question those choices. But how do bad choices establish that we lack the ability to make thoughtful ones?
Consider choosing between studying for the LSAT and doing something more immediately enjoyable. A person might sometimes think ahead and invest the time in studying, and sometimes choose the short-term pleasure instead. The second choice doesn't erase the capacity demonstrated by the first. Having an ability and consistently using it are different things.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is that the author jumps from failures to exercise rationality to the absence of rational capacity. For this question, I'd look for that distinction. We don't need to prove humans always act wisely, or settle whether humans are superior to other animals, to see why the given examples fail to establish the claimed lack of ability.
Working the answers
- A
The definition isn't internally contradictory. Having a capacity for thoughtful decisions is a coherent idea. The problem comes when the author treats examples of not using that capacity as proof that the capacity doesn't exist.
- B
Whether people know their acts are irrational isn't what repairs this inference. Even someone who knowingly makes a poor choice could be capable of making a thoughtful one. The passage does say people knowingly pollute, but awareness of an action doesn't establish the absence of rational capacity.
- C
Suppose other animals never committed those same acts. We'd still need to explain why these human acts show that humans cannot think carefully. Comparing which harmful acts different animals perform doesn't repair the jump from particular behavior to lack of an ability.
- D
The argument doesn't assume humans are no worse than other animals. It argues against regarding humans as superior. Those are different claims, and neither resolves the problem with inferring a missing capacity from examples of poor behavior.
- ECorrect
The 'capacity' is the ability to think and act with careful consideration. The 'given activity' is conduct such as polluting or depleting soil. Humans could possess that ability while failing to use it in those activities. The author treats the failure to display rationality as proof of not having it.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.