PrepTest 125, Section 4, Question 19
Cyclists in the Tour de France are extremely(51 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(14 more words not shown)
- Ahaving exceptional lung(11 more words not shown)
- Bsome winners of(13 more words not shown)
- Ccyclists with normal(7 more words not shown)
- Dthe exceptional lung(14 more words not shown)
- Ethe notions of(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Typical doesn't mean required.
An exceptional heart and exceptional lung capacity are two examples of the unusual physiology these winners tend to have. But are those the only possibilities? Maybe this winner's advantage lies in unusual strength or some other physical trait. The passage tells us the winners have abnormal physiology; it doesn't limit that physiology to the two features named.
What we’re looking for
So even accepting the test result, the conclusion is too strong. Failing to find an exceptionally powerful heart doesn't force us to find exceptional lungs. It would if the winner had to have one or the other, but that requirement was never given. For the flaw question, I'd look for the possibility that a winner has neither of these particular traits.
Working the answers
- A
Those traits could provide an advantage in cycling without being required of every winner. Recognizing their usefulness doesn't establish that last year's winner must have at least one of them. A doesn't expose the missing possibility; it is compatible with the argument's picture of the traits as helpful.
- BCorrect
Some winners could have neither exceptional lung capacity nor exceptionally powerful hearts. They could still have unusual physiology in other respects. If last year's winner were one of those people, the test result would not require the conclusion about lung capacity. The author has treated typical examples as an exhaustive set of possibilities.
- C
This describes how often people with normal lung capacity have powerful hearts. It doesn't establish that a winner without an exceptionally powerful heart must have exceptional lungs. In fact, a person with neither trait could fit C's pattern. C doesn't supply the missing reason to exclude that possibility.
- D
We are asking which traits the cyclist has, not how the traits developed. Training could produce exceptional lungs, exceptional hearts, or other useful attributes. Knowing the source of a trait would not establish that this winner must have that trait.
- E
This tells us what comparison the word 'exceptional' uses. Even if it means exceptional relative to other cyclists, we still don't know that every winner must have exceptional lungs or an exceptional heart. Clarifying the reference group doesn't make the two examples exhaustive.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.