PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 19
The coach of the Eagles used a computer(58 more words not shown)
The argument above is most(8 more words not shown)
- Ainfers from the(22 more words not shown)
- Bpresumes, without providing(19 more words not shown)
- Cdraws conclusions about(13 more words not shown)
- Dpresumes, without providing(13 more words not shown)
- Edraws a conclusion(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if Jennifer only gets put in when the Eagles are already winning by 20?
Then we could see exactly this record without Jennifer being the reason for the wins. The coach might give her playing time once victory looks secure. Her appearance would follow the team's strong performance, rather than produce it. Putting her in at the start of a close game would be a very different situation.
And even if Jennifer has been a major reason for past victories, does that guarantee every future victory? What if she gets injured? What if the next opponent is much better? 'We haven't lost when she played' doesn't settle what happens next.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question asks where the argument goes wrong. Focus on the promise that Jennifer's presence will ensure a win. The past record could be accurate and useful without justifying that guarantee. A computer finding the pattern doesn't make it a rule the future has to follow.
Working the answers
- A
This describes a valid relationship between a genuine guarantee and its absence. If a factor really guarantees a result, the opposite result can't occur while that factor is present. Our problem comes earlier: the author hasn't established a guarantee in the first place. A record of past games doesn't establish that Jennifer's presence is enough to ensure a future win.
- B
We don't need a computer to assign a numerical value to Jennifer's contribution to notice whether she played in games the team lost. The passage even acknowledges that a computer wasn't needed to find this information. The problem is what the author infers from that simple pattern, not whether a complicated measure of a player's contribution is reliable.
- C
The argument doesn't conclude that computer analysis is useful throughout sports based on this one example. Its conclusion is about Jennifer and the Eagles winning. C points toward a broad recommendation about computer analysis that the author never makes.
- DCorrect
The author assumes the past association must continue: games with Jennifer have avoided losses, so putting Jennifer in will ensure future victories. But circumstances can change, and the past association might not have been produced by Jennifer's contribution at all. The large-lead example and the possibility of a stronger opponent both show why the record doesn't establish the guarantee.
- E
The author calls this information valuable but concludes that Jennifer's presence will ensure a win. Also, saying a computer wasn't needed to discover a fact doesn't mean the fact was already known. The analysis could reveal a pattern that someone could have found without a computer. E doesn't identify the unsupported jump to guaranteed future wins.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.