PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 13
Brooks: I'm unhappy in my job, but I(48 more words not shown)
Morgenstern's argument is flawed in(2 more words not shown)
- Afails to take(10 more words not shown)
- Brelies on an(11 more words not shown)
- Cmischaracterizes what Brooks(1 more words not shown)
- Dconflates two different(3 more words not shown)
- Ereaches a generalization(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Unhappy with a paycheck might be better than unhappy without one.
Brooks isn't saying the current job is wonderful. Brooks is weighing whether quitting could make things worse. Morgenstern answers that unemployment would cause unhappiness, but Brooks is already unhappy, so there is supposedly no reason to stay.
How unhappy? Being frustrated at work and being unable to pay for groceries or the mortgage could feel very different. Losing income might make the unhappiness much more intense or give it more serious consequences. Those examples don't require us to deny that the risk is unemployment; they show why that risk can matter.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is treating “unhappy” as a single fixed condition. Knowing that both situations involve unhappiness doesn't establish that Brooks has nothing to lose by moving from one to the other.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Unhappiness can differ in intensity and significance. Brooks could be dissatisfied at work but far more unhappy if quitting led to prolonged unemployment and financial trouble. Morgenstern needs to consider that difference before concluding that existing unhappiness makes quitting the obvious choice.
- B
Morgenstern doesn't simply assume that Brooks should quit and then repeat that conclusion. The offered reason is that the bad outcome of quitting would leave Brooks unhappy, as Brooks already is. That reason fails because it treats the two kinds of unhappiness as equivalent, not because it is just the recommendation stated again.
- C
Morgenstern accepts that Brooks is unhappy and acknowledges the risk of failing to find another job. The problem isn't misreporting what Brooks said. It's dismissing the importance of that risk without considering how much worse the resulting unhappiness might be.
- D
Morgenstern identifies one risk: not finding another job. The argument doesn't confuse that risk with a second type of risk. We can accept the stated risk and still object to the assumption that the unhappiness it could produce is no worse than Brooks's current unhappiness.
- E
The recommendation concerns Brooks. Morgenstern doesn't move from Brooks's case to a claim that all unhappy workers should quit. A broad generalization about other people would be a different error.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.