PrepTest 126, Section 3, Question 2
Board member: The J Foundation, a philanthropic organization,(49 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the board(12 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(15 more words not shown)
- Bconfuses a condition(17 more words not shown)
- Cpresumes, without providing(18 more words not shown)
- Dfails to consider(12 more words not shown)
- Efails to consider(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not praising the foundation isn't the same as hurting it.
The grant came with a condition: don't include material that damages the J Foundation's reputation. Fair enough. But when we get to the alleged violation, the board member says the work never mentions the foundation's good achievements. Those are different things. The work might say nothing about the foundation, either good or bad. How would that establish that it contains damaging material?
What we’re looking for
The board member has quietly changed the rule from “Don't harm our reputation” to “Tell people about our achievements.” We're asked to identify the flaw, so that's the distinction to preserve. We don't have to prove that the work is harmless. We need to explain why the absence of praise hasn't established harm.
Working the answers
- A
The beginning sounds relevant, but the ending changes the subject to intellectual value. The board member doesn't claim that the work is unintelligent or worthless. The complaint concerns its effect on the foundation's reputation. An answer needs to describe that actual inference.
- B
The word “condition” appears in the passage, but that doesn't make this a mistake about a requirement being enough by itself. That mistake would look like this: applicants must avoid harmful material to receive a grant; this applicant avoids harmful material; therefore, this applicant must receive a grant. The board member doesn't argue that way. The mistake is treating a lack of praise as a violation of the no-harm condition.
- CCorrect
This states the jump exactly. The work doesn't mention the foundation's laudable achievements, and the board member treats that omission as harmful to its reputation. But silence about good deeds could simply be silence. The argument needs a reason to connect that omission with actual damage.
- D
Trying to meet a condition and actually meeting it are different. A recipient could work hard to comply and still violate the condition. Whether recipients usually try doesn't establish what this particular work contains, so it doesn't expose the mistake in the board member's reasoning.
- E
Meeting the other conditions wouldn't excuse violating this one. If a grant has several requirements, satisfying most of them can still leave the work out of compliance. Our objection is that the board member hasn't established this particular violation, not that other successes would cancel it out.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.