PrepTest 127, Section 3, Question 14
Many movies starring top actors will do well(26 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in the(13 more words not shown)
- AMany animals must(46 more words not shown)
- BOften the presence(36 more words not shown)
- CA person's ability(38 more words not shown)
- DVisual aids can(33 more words not shown)
- EAn understanding of(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can see why a famous actor helps sell tickets. Some viewers will go because they like that actor, even if the movie itself doesn't sound especially good. But the passage says many movies with top actors do well, not that every such movie succeeds.
Why conclude that movies with unknown actors are unlikely to do well? Perhaps a movie is excellent, or perhaps it belongs to a popular franchise. Imagine a Star Wars movie whose actors are unfamiliar to the audience. People might buy tickets because they want to see the next Star Wars story. A well-known cast is one way to attract an audience; the argument hasn't shown that lacking it usually prevents success.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel-flaw question, keep the degree of the claims as well as their direction. We have a feature that often helps produce a successful result, followed by the claim that cases lacking that feature are unlikely to succeed. We need that unsupported restriction of the routes to success, not just any argument that mentions something useful.
Working the answers
- A
This starts by saying that devoting most energy to finding food is required for these animals to obtain enough food to maintain optimal energy. When most of that energy must go elsewhere, the stated requirement cannot be met. Unlike the movies' helpful star power, food-searching effort is introduced as something necessary for the outcome. The conclusion follows that requirement rather than turning a merely helpful factor into one.
- BCorrect
Bee balm corresponds to the top actors: it often helps bring about success. The bumblebees it attracts play the role of the actors' loyal following, helping produce the desired result. An abundant crop corresponds to box-office success.
Then the argument says that gardens without bee balm usually won't achieve that result, just as movies without top actors supposedly won't do well. What about other flowers that attract pollinators? What about other ways to produce an abundant crop? B overlooks alternative routes in the same way the movie argument overlooks a good story or a popular franchise.
- C
Keeping confidences is described as an important part of friendship, and that ability frequently promotes openness. The conclusion then treats openness as essential to friendship. That is a different move involving the relationship between an important feature and something it promotes. It doesn't identify cases lacking the helpful feature and predict that those cases will usually fail to achieve the result.
- D
Visual aids are useful, so saying their absence might sometimes make teaching harder is a much narrower conclusion than saying success without them is unlikely. Teaching could become more difficult on some occasions and still succeed most of the time. The movie argument makes the stronger claim about the likelihood of success that D avoids.
- E
Here, understanding perspective is expressly required for success. The conclusion then treats having that understanding as enough to guarantee success. Someone could meet the requirement and still paint poorly for another reason. That is the opposite direction from our mistake: the movie argument starts with something helpful and treats its absence as a reason to expect failure.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.