PrepTest 132, Section 2, Question 7
When the famous art collector Vidmar died, a(37 more words not shown)
The flawed pattern of reasoning(15 more words not shown)
- AEach word in(12 more words not shown)
- BThe city council(14 more words not shown)
- CThis paragraph is(9 more words not shown)
- DThe members of(10 more words not shown)
- EThe atoms comprising(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if Vidmar kept a child's finger painting among the masterpieces?
The collection could be enormously valuable while that one painting cost very little. MacNeil can't afford the collection, but the auction sells individual works. We haven't been told that every piece is out of reach. The collection's total value doesn't settle the price of each item.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for another argument that makes that same move. Start with a property of the whole collection, then give that property to its individual pieces. Keep the direction clear: whole to parts. An argument about the pieces establishing something about the whole may also be bad, but it makes a different move.
Working the answers
- A
The words are the parts; the book is the whole. This moves from each word being French to the book being French, the opposite direction from collection to artwork. It also gives a sensible basis for calling the book French. We need a mistaken transfer from the whole to its parts.
- B
“Unanimously” matters. It says that everyone on the council voted for the plan, so Martinez's vote is already included. The conclusion doesn't assume that one member shares a position merely because the council adopted it.
Remove that word and the reasoning would change. A council could adopt a plan even though Martinez voted against it. Then the council's collective decision wouldn't establish the individual vote. But the actual answer includes unanimity, so that possible exception is ruled out.
- CCorrect
The paragraph is the whole, just as the collection is the whole. The sentences are its parts, just as the individual artworks are the collection's parts. The argument takes the paragraph's length and assigns it to the sentences.
A long paragraph could contain many short sentences. Likewise, a valuable collection could contain some inexpensive works. Both arguments overlook differences between the property of the collection and the properties of its individual members.
- D
The members are the parts; the company is the whole. Older people could have founded a brand-new company yesterday, so this reasoning is flawed. But it transfers a property from the members to the company. Our argument transfers a property from the collection to the works inside it.
- E
This also starts with the parts, the atoms, and draws a conclusion about the whole molecule. It doesn't start with a property of the molecule and assign that property to each atom. The subject matter doesn't decide the match; the reversed direction rules it out.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.