PrepTest 129, Section 2, Question 8
A psychiatrist argued that there is no such(26 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AAnton concluded that(25 more words not shown)
- BLyla said that(19 more words not shown)
- CSauda argued that(16 more words not shown)
- DThomas argued that(24 more words not shown)
- EJerod had never(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not encountering something is different from establishing that it does not exist. Someone who has never seen a lion cannot use that personal history alone to establish that there are no lions.
The psychiatrist's years of experience may sound impressive, but perhaps the condition is rare. Imagine a condition occurring in only one person in a million. A clinician could practice for decades without encountering a case. That possibility is enough to show the gap between “I have never encountered one” and “There is no such thing.” We do not need to settle the medical question to evaluate that inference.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, I want another argument that turns one person's lack of encounters into an absolute claim of absence. Both parts matter. A conclusion that something is uncommon or probably absent is weaker than the psychiatrist's categorical conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
The evidence matches closely: one clinician has never encountered the relevant event. But the conclusion says colds are seldom fatal, not that they are never fatal. “Seldom” allows occasional cases. The psychiatrist rules out the existence of any case, so A does not make the same strong leap.
- B
This uses a broader set of observations: no one in the area has seen a groundhog. It also concludes only that there are probably no groundhogs there. We do not have to declare that inference certain or infallible. Its collective evidence and qualified conclusion differ from one person's experience supposedly establishing absolute absence.
- C
Sauda moves from a treatment's low success rate to a recommendation against using it. Therapy corresponds to an intervention whose usefulness is being assessed, not something whose existence is denied because the speaker has never encountered it. Whether the recommendation is justified would require a different analysis; it does not repeat our flaw.
- D
Thomas has repeatedly observed Natasha driving and predicts that this behavior will probably continue. That is a forecast based on an established pattern. It does not use a failure to observe something as proof that it does not exist, and the conclusion is qualified rather than absolute.
- ECorrect
Jerod's failure to spot a deer corresponds to the psychiatrist's failure to encounter a case. Jerod then concludes there are no deer in the area, just as the psychiatrist concludes there are no cases of the disorder.
The conclusion is limited to an area, so it is not exactly the worldwide denial I might have imagined. But the same unsupported move remains: Jerod treats his never having seen a deer as establishing that there are none in the area. Deer could be present without Jerod happening to see them.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.