PrepTest 140, Section 1, Question 23
If the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with(21 more words not shown)
The flawed pattern of reasoning(17 more words not shown)
- AIf Rosita knew(32 more words not shown)
- BIf Barry had(24 more words not shown)
- CIf Makoto believed(25 more words not shown)
- DIf Tamara believed(24 more words not shown)
- EIf Lucy believed(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not being charged isn't the same as not having done it.
The first sentence tells us what would happen if the prosecutor wanted to charge Frank: he would already have been indicted. He hasn't been indicted, so that rule does let us conclude that the prosecutor doesn't want to charge him. But it says nothing about whether Frank actually embezzled anything.
What we’re looking for
That's the substitution to match. The evidence rules out the prosecutor's intention, and the conclusion quietly replaces that with Frank's innocence. For the parallel flaw, look for an expected action that hasn't happened, followed by a conclusion about reality when the rule only concerned someone's belief or intention.
Working the answers
- A
This observes the expected behavior: Rosita arrived at ten. It then concludes that she knew the appointment would cancel, though she might have arrived late because her car broke down. The original observes the absence of the expected event, not its presence. A also keeps the conclusion about her knowledge rather than substituting the underlying reality.
- B
Winning the lottery would make Barry stay home, but not winning doesn't rule out other reasons to stay home. He could be sick. This starts by denying the stated trigger and concludes the predicted behavior won't happen. The original starts with the behavior absent and improperly denies something different from the trigger.
- CCorrect
Believing the oven is on corresponds to the prosecutor wanting to charge Frank. Rushing home corresponds to the expected indictment. Makoto remains at work, so the expected action hasn't happened. That supports denying the stated belief, just as the original supports denying the prosecutor's intention.
But the answer concludes the oven wasn't left on. Makoto could simply not realize that it was. That leap from a mental state to the underlying fact matches the leap from not wanting to charge Frank to Frank not being an embezzler.
- D
This does shift from a belief about a promotion to the promotion actually happening. But it begins with the expected action occurring: Tamara comes in early. The original begins with the expected action absent. D therefore combines a different direction of inference with its shift from belief to reality.
- E
This also confuses a fact with a belief, but puts the substitution in a different place. Being about to be fired doesn't mean Lucy knows or believes that she is. E uses the actual firing as if it supplied the belief needed to predict her absence. The original instead starts with an absent outcome and concludes something about the underlying fact.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.