PrepTest 128, Section 3, Question 23
Councillor Miller opposes all proposals to raise taxes.(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- ATara finds Ms.(39 more words not shown)
- BJane refuses to(35 more words not shown)
- CMayor Watson promised(32 more words not shown)
- DEd dislikes any(28 more words not shown)
- EIn the past,(32 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Miller opposes every tax increase, while Philopoulos supports more school funding. Those positions needn't conflict. Perhaps existing property-tax revenue could be moved from another part of the budget, such as parks, to schools. Supporting the funding goal doesn't automatically mean supporting higher taxes.
Now Callari's actual proposal does raise property taxes. That settles Miller's position: it falls within the category of proposals Miller always opposes.
What about Philopoulos? We don't know enough. Philopoulos might want more school funding but prefer reallocating money. Or there might be some other objection to this particular plan. The argument turns support for a goal into guaranteed support for a specific way of achieving it.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, keep both parts: a strict refusal justifies one prediction, while a general preference doesn't justify the other definite prediction. We want the same unsupported move for the person whose position leaves room for other considerations.
Working the answers
- A
Tara's judgment concerns two whole classes. The argument attributes the difference in difficulty to papers versus exams, though the teacher, books, or grading could explain it instead. Perhaps Ms. Burke assigns easier material. That is a jump from the overall comparison to one supposed explanation, not a justified prediction about one person's refusal paired with an unjustified prediction about another person's preference.
- BCorrect
Jane corresponds to Miller: refusing to live downtown rules out the downtown Joliet Towers apartments, just as opposing all tax increases rules out Callari's proposal. Denise corresponds to Philopoulos: wanting a penthouse is a general preference, just as wanting more school funding is a general goal.
The specific Joliet Towers apartments take the place of the specific funding proposal. They satisfy one preference, but Denise could dislike the view, find the rent too high, or have another objection. B correctly predicts Jane's refusal and overstates what we know about Denise's choice. That's the same split between the supported and unsupported conclusions.
- C
Watson's stated policy against fare increases is applied to a proposal that doubles fares. That resembles the Miller portion of the argument. It doesn't include the defective second move: inferring definite support for a particular proposal from a person's general desire for a benefit. Questions about whether Watson will keep the promise don't supply that missing parallel.
- D
Ed's dislike of every extremely sweet food parallels Miller's universal opposition. Bill's liking for most extremely sweet foods is more limited, but the conclusion about Bill is limited too: he will probably like the brownies. The original makes a definite prediction about Philopoulos. D uses a qualified prediction rather than turning a general preference into certainty; it needn't deductively guarantee Bill's reaction to avoid the original mistake.
- E
The past votes provide a pattern from which the author forecasts another probable vote. The original instead applies a standing policy to Miller and overextends a general goal for Philopoulos. Sharing the topic of property taxes doesn't make this historical prediction match those two moves.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.