PrepTest 128, Section 2, Question 18
Critic: The contemporary novel is incapable of making(28 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in the(13 more words not shown)
- ASince no government(22 more words not shown)
- BBecause there has(25 more words not shown)
- CThe essayist Macaulay(28 more words not shown)
- DThis politician has(20 more words not shown)
- EIn international commerce,(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
'Contemporary' means modern. The critic says the modern novel cannot make important new contributions. That is a sweeping claim. Even a critic who dislikes popular books such as Harry Potter or The Hunger Games would need to explain why their cultural influence could not count as a contribution.
Look at the evidence actually given. Psychological novels have failed; action novels lack social significance; romance novels are stale and formulaic. What about mysteries, horror novels, or thrillers? Three genres aren't automatically the whole field.
There is another gap. Failing in one respect doesn't mean making no contribution in any respect. A failed novel might even teach later writers something about how not to tell a story. Lack of social significance could coexist with a different kind of contribution. The listed shortcomings don't establish the broad incapability asserted in the conclusion.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel-flaw question, I'd look for limited areas of failure being used to rule out a much broader kind of achievement. We need to compare how the evidence is extended, not just find another argument that criticizes something.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Employment and inflation are particular areas of economic policy, just as the critic lists particular kinds of novels and shortcomings. Failing to regulate those areas very closely doesn't establish that no government can improve any part of its economy. The original likewise moves from the listed failures to the claim that contemporary novels cannot make any important new contribution.
Both arguments also turn a record of shortcomings into a claim of impossibility. Not having achieved close control so far doesn't show that improvement is impossible, just as the critic's negative assessments don't establish that important contributions cannot be made. A captures the broad leap even though its subject and number of examples differ.
- B
This moves from progress toward a goal to the prediction that an extreme endpoint will eventually be reached. A parallel literary version would say that novels have become longer, so eventually someone will write an infinitely long novel. The original uses failures to declare achievement impossible; it doesn't extrapolate progress into inevitable success.
- C
Macaulay's decline in popularity is used to predict that currently popular writers will probably also be forgotten. That may overgeneralize from one writer's experience, but it predicts a similar future outcome for others. It doesn't move from shortcomings in limited areas to an absolute inability to make any broader contribution.
- D
This infers the politician's attitude from a lack of proposals. A politician could consider unemployment important while having no proposal ready. That is a jump from conduct to what someone thinks, not the original move from particular failures to a sweeping claim of incapability.
- E
'Best suited' doesn't mean 'the only ones capable.' Large corporations could have an advantage while small ones still competed successfully. To match E, the original would need to say that older novels are best suited to contribute and therefore modern novels cannot contribute. Instead, it lists shortcomings and extends them into a broad claim of impossibility.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.