PrepTest 134, Section 2, Question 23
Principle: It is healthy for children to engage(55 more words not shown)
The application of the principle(12 more words not shown)
- AIt misinterprets the(19 more words not shown)
- BIt overlooks the(19 more words not shown)
- CIt misinterprets the(22 more words not shown)
- DIt takes for(21 more words not shown)
- EIt takes a(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Less time with other people doesn't necessarily mean worse social development.
Suppose Megan had been spending 100 units of time interacting with people and reading brought that down to 90. What if 50 units would already provide plenty of interaction for her development? The numbers are only an illustration, but they expose the missing connection. A decrease in time doesn't by itself show that she is now missing something she needs.
The principle says an intellectually stimulating activity can be healthy only if it doesn't detract from social development. We must accept that requirement. The problem is that the application never establishes a failure to meet it. It establishes less interaction and treats that as impaired development.
What we’re looking for
That's the flaw I'd look for: assuming that any reduction in social time harms social development. We can accept the principle and the fact that Megan reads a lot while still questioning whether her reading violates the principle.
Working the answers
- A
The principle states a requirement without presenting it as merely usual or typical. The application is allowed to treat that requirement as applying generally. Its mistake concerns whether Megan's situation fails the requirement, not whether the rule has unstated exceptions.
- B
The principle doesn't offer a balancing test under which enough intellectual benefit can outweigh harm to social development. It says avoiding that harm is required for the activity to be healthy. B tries to revise the rule instead of identifying what went wrong when the author applied it to Megan.
- C
A requirement for being healthy can tell us when something fails to qualify as healthy. If an activity must avoid harming social development to be healthy, then one that does harm social development fails that requirement. That kind of reasoning is fine. The missing step is showing that Megan's reduced interaction actually constitutes such harm.
- DCorrect
The application assumes that spending less time interacting detracts from Megan's social development. But perhaps she still has more than enough social interaction, as the 100-to-90 example illustrates. Without a connection between the reduced time and impaired development, the rule doesn't support the conclusion that this amount of reading is not healthy for her.
- E
This would describe reasoning such as: avoiding harm to social development is required for health; reading avoids that harm; therefore reading is healthy. That isn't what happens here. The application concludes that the activity is not healthy because it allegedly fails the requirement. The mistake is the unsupported allegation that less time interacting means harm to development.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.