PrepTest 140, Section 3, Question 15
Amoebas, like human beings, generally withdraw from stimuli(25 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- APoets, like people(35 more words not shown)
- BLike nonprofit organizations,(35 more words not shown)
- CMost professional athletes(32 more words not shown)
- DPredatory birds, like(36 more words not shown)
- EHiking trails in(43 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Pulling away from damage doesn't automatically mean feeling pain. When I pull my hand away from a hot stove, pain can explain my reaction. An amoeba might withdraw for a different reason. The same outward behavior doesn't establish the same inner experience.
Then the conclusion makes another jump: we started with amoebas, but suddenly we're talking about all microscopic organisms. Even evidence that amoebas feel pain wouldn't, by itself, establish that every organism in that larger category feels pain.
What we’re looking for
For a matching flawed argument, I want both moves. Two groups share a behavior. The author gives a reason one group behaves that way, assumes the other group has the same reason, and extends the conclusion from that second group to a broader category. Track those roles; matching the subject matter isn't enough.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Poets take the amoebas' role, and people under hypnosis take the humans' role. Using odd language corresponds to withdrawing from damaging stimuli. Lowered inhibitions explain the hypnotized group's behavior just as pain explains the humans' behavior.
The argument then assigns lowered inhibitions to the other side without showing that its behavior has the same cause. A poet might choose unusual language to impress an audience, for example. Finally, it expands from poets to all artists, matching the leap from amoebas to all microscopic organisms. Both mistakes are present.
- B
This matches the first problem quite well. Corporations and nonprofits provide free services, and the argument transfers the nonprofits' stated motive to corporations. Corporations could have a different motive. But the conclusion stays with corporations; it doesn't expand from that group to a broader category. It also says 'probably' and 'most' rather than making the original's universal claim. A captures the complete structure more closely.
- C
Boxers and skaters are two groups, but the first sentence explicitly says most professional athletes practice for the same reason. So this argument supplies evidence of a shared reason before moving from boxers to skaters. It doesn't merely infer a shared reason from shared behavior, and it doesn't expand a conclusion about one subgroup to all athletes.
- D
The conclusion predicts that hawks hunt alone. It doesn't claim that hawks hunt alone for the mammals' stated reason, a shortage of food. It also narrows from predatory birds to hawks rather than expanding to a larger category. Both the kind of conclusion and the direction of the category move differ.
- E
Like the original, this transfers an explanation: discomfort in low-lying areas helps explain New Mexico's trail locations, so the argument expects discomfort in British Columbia too. But the target stays British Columbia; it doesn't expand to all Canadian or all northern regions. Using locations rather than organisms isn't the problem. Missing the broader-category jump is.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.