PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 24
Had the party's economic theories been sound and(30 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in which(15 more words not shown)
- AIf the people(54 more words not shown)
- BMany people fear(47 more words not shown)
- CIf the company(48 more words not shown)
- DCity residents were(46 more words not shown)
- EIf the television(38 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the theory was sound and the implementation failed.
The promise is that two conditions together will produce the result: sound economic theories and successful implementation of the program. If both were present, inflation would have fallen considerably. Since inflation instead increased, something in that combination went wrong.
But which part? The result doesn't tell us. The party might have had a sound plan that it never successfully put into practice. It might have implemented an unsound plan, or failed on both fronts. The argument singles out the theories without eliminating the implementation problem.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, look for two conditions that together produce a result. The result doesn't happen, and the author blames one particular condition without considering failure of the other. We need the same direction of reasoning, not just another passage with two conditions.
Working the answers
- A
Here either an invasion or a dramatic climatic change would produce architectural changes. The original combines two conditions; this answer makes either event enough. If an invasion would have changed the architecture and the architecture didn't change, ruling out an invasion is supported. There isn't a second required ingredient whose absence could explain why an invasion produced no change.
- B
This does contain a two-part prediction: an election win plus wage cuts would lead to strikes. But it's presented as what people fear, and the evidence is the workers' promise not to strike, rather than an observed failure of the predicted result. The conclusion then guesses what the workers think about a party promise. Those changes introduce reasoning about beliefs and promises, not the original's attempt to identify which actual condition failed from an actual outcome.
- CCorrect
Selling the subsidiaries corresponds to having sound theories. Using the money to buy the patent corresponds to successful implementation. Both together would double the stock price, just as both original conditions would substantially lower inflation.
The stock price doesn't increase, and the author blames failure to sell the subsidiaries. But perhaps the company sold them and then didn't buy the patent. That is exactly like the possibility of sound theories without successful implementation. The missing result establishes that the combination wasn't completed, not which part failed.
- D
This starts with two conditions together: winning the battle and freeing the leaders would produce support. But then the support occurs, and the author uses that result to infer a battle victory. Our original starts with the expected result failing to occur. Inferring an earlier condition from a result that does occur is a different mistake.
- E
This has one initial condition, the equipment being worth the investment, and two predicted benefits: better accuracy and higher ratings. Our original has two conditions leading to one result. E doesn't single out one failed ingredient of a two-part starting condition. Its further shift from being worth the investment to being an improvement is also different from the original's uncertainty about which condition failed.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.