PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 4
Journalist: A manufacturers' trade group that has long(56 more words not shown)
The journalist's reasoning in the(7 more words not shown)
- Agives no reason(13 more words not shown)
- Bdoes not present(12 more words not shown)
- Cdoes not explain(15 more words not shown)
- Dpresents no reason(15 more words not shown)
- Etakes for granted(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is this the whole membership list?
The representative confirms that every company on the document is a member. Good: we can trust the listed names as examples of members. But the journalist needs something more before using an absent name to rule a company out.
Imagine the document lists only ten percent of the group's members. Every name on it could be accurate, and Bruch Industries could belong to the other ninety percent. The representative's statement would be true, yet the journalist's conclusion would be false.
What we’re looking for
Being on this list establishes membership. We haven't been told that being a member requires being on this list. That's the mistake the flaw answer should identify: treating a list of genuine members as a complete list of members.
Working the answers
- A
Wanting to join and actually belonging are different questions. Bruch could have a strong reason to join or no obvious reason, and we'd still need to know whether this document contains every member before using its absence as proof. The flaw isn't a failure to explain Bruch's wishes.
- BCorrect
The journalist gives no evidence that every member is named. The representative confirms that the listed companies belong, but never confirms that unlisted companies do not. A partial list fits everything we know and leaves room for Bruch to be a member.
- C
How the document was accidentally sent doesn't resolve whether it is complete. An employee could have attached the wrong file or sent a message to the wrong person. Whatever caused the leak, the same logical question remains: could there be members outside the document?
- D
Bruch's reasons for wanting secrecy don't determine its membership. The group already keeps its membership list secret, but that background doesn't establish that this particular document lists all its members. Explaining a possible desire for privacy would leave the journalist's mistake intact.
- E
We don't need to challenge the representative's statement to show the problem. Even accepting that every listed company is a member, the conclusion still doesn't follow. The answer redirects attention toward possible dishonesty, whereas our incomplete-list example works with a completely truthful representative. Nothing requires us to invent a false statement or a motive for one.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.