PrepTest 137, Section 3, Question 8
Clark: Our local community theater often produces plays(49 more words not shown)
The reasoning in Clark's argument(11 more words not shown)
- Atakes a condition(18 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(11 more words not shown)
- Ctreats one main(27 more words not shown)
- Duses as evidence(10 more words not shown)
- Eprovides no evidence(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Michaela could be an exception. Critical acclaim is one of the theater's main considerations, but nobody said a playwright must have it to be selected.
Maybe the theater likes Michaela's subject matter or thinks her play suits its actors. Those are possible reasons, not facts we're given. They show how the theater could take critical acclaim seriously and still choose a play by someone who hasn't received it.
What we’re looking for
The director's statement doesn't close that possibility. ‘One of the main factors’ allows other considerations to matter. Clark turns that preference into a requirement and then treats the selection of Michaela's play as proof that she meets it. For the flaw question, we want an answer describing that jump.
Working the answers
- A
This describes a requirement for being critically acclaimed that is mistakenly treated as enough to establish acclaim. We were never given such a requirement. The evidence describes what the theater considers when selecting plays, not what a playwright must do to receive critical acclaim. A places the supposed requirement on the wrong process.
- B
The issue isn't that one cause might produce several effects. Clark's mistake is treating one possible consideration in a selection decision as mandatory. We could allow critical acclaim to have many effects and still need to ask whether the theater ever chooses playwrights without it.
- CCorrect
Critical acclaim is a main factor in the decision, but Clark treats it as something every selected playwright must possess. If the theater sometimes chooses a play for other reasons, Michaela could be one of those cases. Her selection then wouldn't establish that she is critically acclaimed.
- D
We have no stated reason to distrust the production director's account of the selection process. More importantly, we can accept that account completely and still reject Clark's inference. The director says acclaim is one main factor; Clark adds that it is required. The error happens in that added claim.
- E
This asks whether critical acclaim results from productions rather than causing them. We don't need to establish that direction to expose the problem. Whether a production could help a playwright gain acclaim is separate from whether existing acclaim is required for selection. Clark hasn't established the requirement, and E doesn't describe that gap.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.