PrepTest 138, Section 2, Question 25
If squirrels eat from a bird feeder, it(36 more words not shown)
The flawed pattern of reasoning(16 more words not shown)
- AIf a tire's(44 more words not shown)
- BIf a tire's(45 more words not shown)
- CTires wear out(43 more words not shown)
- DIf a tire's(44 more words not shown)
- EIf a tire's(49 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An uncovered feeder could still have no squirrels anywhere near it.
We know that squirrels eating from the feeder would keep it from attracting many birds. We also know that squirrels can eat from it only when it lacks a protective cover. So no cover is a requirement for squirrel feeding. It isn't a guarantee that squirrels will show up.
Imagine putting an uncovered feeder in an area with no squirrels. The two premises can both be true, yet the conclusion that it won't attract many birds has no support from them. The author has treated an opportunity for the problem as enough to produce the problem.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel-flaw question, track three roles: squirrels eating, few birds coming, and the missing cover. Squirrel feeding leads to few birds and requires no cover. The flawed conclusion starts from no cover and jumps to few birds. We need that same pattern, even if the new argument phrases its outcome differently.
Working the answers
- A
Low pressure leads to early tire wear, but the second statement works backward from early wear to low pressure as a likely explanation. Then the conclusion introduces regular checks as a way to prevent wear. That differs from our second premise, which gives a requirement for the initial cause. A does not build the same three-part pattern.
- BCorrect
Low tire pressure plays the role of squirrels eating. Premature wear plays the role of the feeder not attracting many birds. Neglecting pressure checks plays the role of lacking a cover.
The argument says low pressure causes premature wear and can arise only if checks are neglected. It then treats neglecting checks as enough to cause premature wear. But a neglected tire could happen to retain adequate pressure, just as an uncovered feeder could have no squirrels. Both arguments turn a condition required for the initial problem into a guarantee of the final bad outcome.
Don't be distracted because one outcome says 'will not attract' and the other says 'will wear out.' Each complete phrase describes the outcome in its argument. Their wording doesn't change the relationship among the three roles.
- C
This already states that neglecting checks leads to premature wear, then introduces awareness as a reason people would check their tires. Its conclusion recommends making people aware. Our argument neither introduces knowledge as a separate factor nor ends with a recommendation.
- D
This gives a valid chain: neglected checks lead to low pressure, and low pressure leads to premature wear. Therefore neglect leads to wear. Unlike B and the original, D explicitly provides the connection from neglect to the intermediate problem. It doesn't have to assume that connection by turning a requirement around.
- E
Low pressure and gravel roads are two separately sufficient sources of premature wear. The conclusion says eliminating one won't help when the other is present. That's a different possible error about removing one of multiple causes, not treating a requirement for one cause as enough to produce that cause's effect.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.