PrepTest 129, Section 1, Question 17
Warm air tends to be humid, and as(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(18 more words not shown)
- AFood that is(46 more words not shown)
- BYour refusal to(31 more words not shown)
- CPeople tend not(45 more words not shown)
- DStatistics show that(39 more words not shown)
- EPeople tend to(43 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More rain doesn't settle why it is raining more.
The argument links warm air with humidity, then links increasing humidity with increasing rainfall. It next observes more rainfall and works back to a rise in temperature. But what if some other change in weather patterns explains the rain? A change involving pressure systems or the water cycle is a possibility to investigate, not a fact we need to establish. The point is that the stated relationships don't isolate temperature as the explanation.
Think of saying, 'When I go to the mall, I tend to spend money. I spent money yesterday, so I probably went to the mall.' Spending money can happen in other ways. The observation doesn't establish the particular route suggested by the earlier relationship.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, preserve the whole pattern: one factor is linked with a second, the second with a third, and an increase in the third is used to infer an increase in the first. We want that same unsupported inference even if the new argument concerns something entirely different from weather.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Fresh food corresponds to warm air, nutritious food to humidity, and health to rainfall. The premises connect the first factor with the second and the second with the third. Then, from improved health, the argument infers fresher food, just as the original infers warmer air from increased rain.
Better medical treatment or hospitals could explain the health improvement instead. The premises might all be true while food is no fresher. That matches both the three-part pattern and the failure to distinguish the proposed explanation from other possibilities.
- B
This does give a general tendency: people who withhold their finances generally hide financial impropriety. It applies that tendency directly to a person who withholds the information. There is no chain of three factors and no observation of an increase in the last factor used to infer an increase in the first. Whatever concerns we have about this accusation, it doesn't repeat the rainfall argument's structure.
- C
Carrying bags is connected with both reluctance to use mass transit and greater awkwardness when using it. The conclusion then predicts automobile use. It doesn't observe increased awkwardness and work back to increased bag carrying. It also has a different possible gap: people might still take the bus because they cannot afford an alternative, even if doing so is awkward.
- D
This compares population trends in longevity, health, weight, and exercise, then denies that leanness and fitness are essential. It doesn't supply the original's linked sequence of three factors. It also leaves open whether the people living longer and healthier lives are the same people who are overweight and exercising less. That issue about overlapping groups differs from inferring a particular earlier factor from the increase in a later one.
- E
This uses one tendency about watching enjoyable programs, together with the existence of more viewers, to infer some satisfaction. It doesn't have the three-stage chain or infer an increase in an initial factor from an increase in a final factor. Also, 'tend to watch only' states a tendency, not an absolute guarantee; we shouldn't turn this into a strict rule to make it seem different. Its actual pattern is already different enough.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.