PrepTest 140, Section 2, Question 11
A science class stored one selection of various(71 more words not shown)
The class's reasoning is flawed(4 more words not shown)
- Ageneralized too readily(11 more words not shown)
- Bignored the effects(13 more words not shown)
- Ctoo readily extrapolated(12 more words not shown)
- Dassumed without proof(5 more words not shown)
- Eneglected to offer(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How cold are we allowed to go?
The class has three results: 20 degrees works better than 30, and 10 works better than 20. That supports a pattern over the temperatures tested. It doesn't tell us the pattern continues forever. What if a much lower temperature, such as negative 20 degrees, damages these fruits? We don't need to know that it does. The possibility shows what the experiment hasn't tested.
What we’re looking for
I also notice that the selections and conditions are described as similar. In designing an experiment, I'd want comparable fruit, moisture, and light so that temperature is the relevant difference. The passage does tell us the selections and conditions were similar, though. We shouldn't invent a large difference in humidity and treat it as an established problem. The clear mistake is the leap from a limited temperature range to a rule covering the whole range. That's what I'd expect the flaw answer to describe.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion stays with “these varieties of fruits.” It doesn't claim that the results apply to every kind of fruit. The class expands the temperatures covered by its claim, not the varieties covered.
- B
Humidity and sunlight could affect spoilage, but the passage specifies similar conditions. It doesn't give us a basis for saying that those factors were ignored or differed enough to explain the results. Even with perfectly matched humidity and light, the limited temperatures wouldn't establish the class's sweeping conclusion.
- CCorrect
The class tested only 10, 20, and 30 degrees, then concluded that cooler temperatures always keep these fruits fresh longer. A pattern within that narrow range needn't hold below it, above it, or at every point within it. The experiment supports its observed results without establishing this unrestricted rule.
- D
Nothing suggests the thermometer was unreliable. We can accept that the reported temperatures were accurate and still identify the unsupported extension beyond the tested range. Inventing faulty equipment doesn't address the actual step from these measurements to the conclusion.
- E
An experiment can establish a useful pattern before anyone knows its underlying explanation. Not explaining why temperature affected freshness isn't what makes this inference defective. The problem is claiming the pattern holds at temperatures the class hasn't investigated.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.