PrepTest 135, Section 4, Question 24
Paleomycologists, scientists who study ancient forms of fungi,(34 more words not shown)
The flawed pattern of reasoning(16 more words not shown)
- AWhen a flight(41 more words not shown)
- BAny time that(49 more words not shown)
- CAny time the(32 more words not shown)
- DAll employees of(40 more words not shown)
- EWhenever a competitor(41 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Mansour read DeAngelis's work without becoming a specialist in ancient fungi. Mansour could be a neighbor or a colleague in another field who took an interest in those publications.
The rule says paleomycologists know the other specialists' publications. It doesn't say only paleomycologists can know them. The author takes a result that membership in the field guarantees and uses it to conclude membership in the field.
Here's the same mistake in a simpler form: suppose everyone eaten by a shark dies. Bob is dead. Does that prove a shark ate Bob? No. The result could have happened another way.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, look for a rule taking us from one condition to a result, followed by that result and an unjustified claim that the original condition must have occurred.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
A delayed first flight on Global causes connecting Global flights to be delayed. Frieda's connecting flight is delayed, so the author concludes her first flight must have been a delayed Global flight. But the connecting flight might be late because of a mechanical problem or weather, even if her first flight arrived on time.
The delayed first flight corresponds to being a paleomycologist; the delayed connection corresponds to knowing the publications. In both arguments, observing the result doesn't identify the one route named in the rule as its necessary source.
- B
The rule says an absent agent makes the others work harder. This argument observes the absence of that triggering condition and concludes the extra work didn't occur. Our original instead observes the result and concludes the triggering condition did occur. B is also flawed—an unusually busy day could require extra work—but it makes a different move.
- C
Lower fuel prices reduce expenses while leaving income unchanged. That could improve the airline's finances without producing a profit: expenses might still exceed income. The argument observes the stated triggering condition, then jumps beyond its stated result. It doesn't infer a condition from a result as the original does.
- D
Gavin's length of service makes him eligible to participate in the plan. It doesn't mean he actually participates. This confuses having an option with taking it. The original mistake concerns whether an observed result establishes membership in a group, not whether permission guarantees a choice.
- E
The rule applies when a competitor cuts fares. The argument never establishes that a competitor did so; it jumps from increased passenger numbers to a claim about matching price cuts. Our original observes a result directly named in its rule and infers the rule's starting condition. E instead relies on an unestablished competitive situation to explain a broader change in passenger totals.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.