PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 25
Of the citizens who disapprove of the prime(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AOf the people(49 more words not shown)
- BOf the people(53 more words not shown)
- COf the people(39 more words not shown)
- DOf the people(44 more words not shown)
- EOf the people(43 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Theresa could like the tax proposal and dislike almost everything else the prime minister does.
Maybe she opposes the prime minister's immigration policies. Maybe the tax increase is the only point of agreement. Knowing that she rejects the most common reason for disapproval doesn't tell us that she approves overall.
Notice which group the statistic describes: citizens who already disapprove. That could be a large share of the country or a tiny one. If only 1 percent disapproved, 'most of the disapprovers' would still tell us nothing close to what most citizens think. More importantly, even within that group, some people can disapprove for other reasons.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, track the roles. A group holds a position, and most members hold it for a stated reason. One person rejects that reason, so the author concludes the person probably holds the opposite position. We need another argument that overlooks other possible reasons for the original position.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The logging supporters correspond to the prime minister's critics: they are the group whose position we are trying to predict. Fire prevention is their common reason, just as opposition to a tax increase is the critics' common reason. Andy rejects fire prevention as a reason for logging, just as Theresa rejects the critics' tax objection.
The conclusion then assigns Andy the opposite position: opposition to logging. But he could support logging for another reason, such as its economic benefits, while doubting that it prevents fires. That matches Theresa possibly disapproving for another reason while supporting the tax increase.
- B
Bonita rejects the population forecast that defines the initial group. The conclusion then concerns a different policy, building a school. To match the original, we would need a group that favors a policy for a common reason, then a person rejecting that reason and supposedly opposing the policy. B moves from not belonging to the population-forecast group to a view about school construction instead.
- C
Chung's overall economic judgment is given, and the argument infers his view of his personal finances. The original moves the other way: it starts with Theresa's view of the particular reason and infers her overall assessment. C switches the roles of the broader position and the supporting reason.
- D
The study isn't a new topic; it appears in the first sentence. But Donna's opposition to increasing its funding is different from opposing any funding. Even setting that distinction aside, the structure is membership in an opposition group leading to an associated freeway belief. The original starts with rejection of a group's usual reason and infers the opposite overall stance. D doesn't make that move.
- E
Eduardo shares the group's belief in a blizzard, so the author infers that he probably encountered its usual source, the weather report. The original instead gives us someone who rejects the group's usual reason. A matching version would use rejection of the news report's forecast to conclude that Eduardo probably doesn't expect a blizzard, overlooking other reasons he might expect one.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.