PrepTest 138, Section 4, Question 10
Letter to the editor: Sites are needed for(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe argument distorts(15 more words not shown)
- BThe argument fails(12 more words not shown)
- CThe argument attempts(27 more words not shown)
- DThe argument's conclusion(16 more words not shown)
- EThe argument takes(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Twenty thousand people oppose the proposal. Do they know what it will do to fishing?
A petition establishes that people are against the editor's proposed disposal approach. It doesn't, by itself, establish the technical claim that the approach will damage commercial fishing. The signers might have good information. Or they might have been persuaded by a claim that hasn't been checked.
Imagine a campaign telling people, incorrectly, that the proposed site would harm the local fishing industry. A large number could sign the petition, and the predicted harm could still fail to occur. Adding signatures doesn't fix the missing connection between the signers' views and the actual effects of the plan.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, look for that unsupported reliance on opinion. The conclusion is about damage to fishing, so we need a reason to trust these people's judgment about that damage.
Working the answers
- A
To identify a distortion, we'd need to compare what the editor actually proposed with the letter's portrayal of it. The passage doesn't give us that basis. Our problem is the move from public opposition to the predicted harm, not a demonstrated misrepresentation of the proposal.
- B
The letter doesn't establish that sand-capped pits are viable. But its conclusion is that the editor's approach would damage fishing. That claim could be true even if the alternative approach also had problems. Showing the alternative works isn't what would fix the unsupported claim about this proposal's effects.
- C
We aren't told the letter writer's occupation, financial interest or motive. The writer could be a fisherman, a restaurant owner or someone with no personal stake. We can't explain the reasoning flaw by assigning a self-interested motive that the passage never establishes.
- DCorrect
The author relies on the petition signers without establishing that they have the expertise to judge the effects on fishing. This doesn't mean none of the 20,000 people knows anything relevant. It means the number of people agreeing is offered without showing why their agreement is a reliable indication of the claimed harm.
- E
A third option could exist, and the editor's approach could still damage fishing. The letter isn't proving that the two mentioned approaches exhaust all possibilities or that one will satisfy everyone. Its specific claim concerns the harm from this proposal, which is where the evidentiary gap lies.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.