PrepTest 125, Section 4, Question 4
Ray: Cynthia claims that her car's trunk popped(53 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Ray's argument(9 more words not shown)
- Afails to consider(16 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(12 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(14 more words not shown)
- Dfails to consider(14 more words not shown)
- Epresumes the truth(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe it was the pothole this time.
The trunk has popped open without a pothole before. Fine. That shows a pothole isn't the only possible way for it to open. It doesn't show that hitting a pothole couldn't make it open now. Ray would need more to rule out Cynthia's explanation of this particular occasion.
What we’re looking for
We don't have to prove Cynthia right to spot the flaw. Perhaps she's mistaken, but Ray's evidence hasn't established that. For the flaw question, look for the possibility that the same result can have different causes on different occasions. Finding one route to an open trunk doesn't eliminate another.
Working the answers
- A
What happens to other cars doesn't settle what happened to Cynthia's car. Their trunks might pop open over potholes or stay firmly shut. The missing possibility is that Cynthia's own trunk can open for more than one reason, not merely that a pothole can affect someone else's car.
- B
Damage to the engine is a different outcome. We need to know why the trunk opened. A pothole's possible effect on the engine doesn't expose the error in using earlier trunk openings to rule out this explanation.
- C
This concerns one cause producing more than one effect. Our problem is more than one possible cause producing the same effect. Ray isn't arguing that a pothole couldn't both open a trunk and damage something else. Ray argues that because the trunk opened for other reasons before, the pothole wasn't responsible now.
- DCorrect
One type of event, the trunk popping open, can happen in different ways. Earlier openings could have had one cause while this opening had another. So the fact that no pothole was involved on the earlier occasions doesn't rule out the pothole on this occasion.
- E
Ray supplies evidence about earlier openings, which is separate from the conclusion that Cynthia's present explanation is wrong. That evidence doesn't adequately support the conclusion, but inadequate support isn't the same as assuming the conclusion true from the start. E describes a different error.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.