PrepTest 136, Section 4, Question 24
No one who works at Leila's Electronics has(27 more words not shown)
The flawed reasoning in the(15 more words not shown)
- ANo one who(31 more words not shown)
- BNo one who(30 more words not shown)
- CMy neighbors have(28 more words not shown)
- DMy next-door neighbors(33 more words not shown)
- EAnyone who lives(30 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Lester could be an average employee. Perhaps he received neither a poor evaluation nor a raise.
The rule only prevents an employee from receiving both. It does not promise that every employee gets one or the other. So learning that Lester did not get a raise leaves two possibilities open: he received a poor evaluation, or he did not.
What we’re looking for
To match the flaw, look for the same three moves: two things cannot occur together; one is absent; therefore the other must be present. The last step fails because both might be absent.
Working the answers
- A
The neighbors pay rent. Given the stated rule that nobody both rents and owns the house they live in, that rules out ownership. This starts with one condition present and excludes the other. Our argument starts with one condition absent and wrongly insists that the other is present.
- B
Here the neighbors own the house, which rules out paying rent under the same stated rule. As in A, one condition is present, so the forbidden combination lets us exclude the other. There is no unsupported demand that one condition must occur.
- C
This explicitly supplies the rule the conclusion needs: anyone living in a house without renting it owns it. The neighbors have not paid rent, so that rule supports ownership as the choice presents the situation. Unlike the original, it is not relying merely on a ban against having both conditions.
- DCorrect
Not owning corresponds to Lester's not receiving a raise. The rule against both owning and renting corresponds to the rule against both a raise and a poor evaluation. The conclusion that the neighbors must rent makes the same mistake: absence of one condition is treated as proof of the other.
For example, the neighbors might live rent-free in a relative's house. They would neither own it nor pay rent, while still obeying the rule that nobody does both. That is the housing equivalent of Lester receiving neither a raise nor a poor evaluation.
- E
This expressly says that residents who do not own their homes pay rent. The neighbors meet that condition, so the conclusion follows from the supplied rule. D never gives us that rule; it only prohibits combining ownership and renting. That difference is exactly what makes D flawed and E supported.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.