PrepTest 143, Section 1, Question 12
Commentator: The Duke of Acredia argued long ago(66 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the commentator's(12 more words not shown)
- Aignores the possibility(18 more words not shown)
- Binfers the necessity(17 more words not shown)
- Cappeals to evidence(13 more words not shown)
- Dinfers that a(19 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could an uncaring ruler still run a successful government?
Imagine a ruler who wants a wealthy, stable country for selfish reasons. The ruler might govern effectively without caring about the people's welfare. That possibility matters because the commentator concludes that genuine concern is required for success.
The evidence only tells us about governments that fell: each had a ruler who disregarded the people's needs. What about governments that succeeded? We haven't been told whether their rulers cared. For all we know, uncaring rulers appeared in both groups. Looking only at failures doesn't establish that an uncaring ruler cannot succeed.
What we’re looking for
The flaw is the jump from finding a lack of concern among failed rulers to declaring concern necessary for successful rule. Look for an answer preserving that distinction; the direction of the evidence matters.
Working the answers
- A
The problem isn't that the requirements might have changed over time. The commentator hasn't established that concern was required even in the period being discussed. We need evidence ruling out successful, uncaring rulers before reaching that conclusion.
- B
This changes the evidence. The passage says that whenever a government failed, its ruler lacked concern. B instead says that whenever concern was absent, failure followed. Those are different claims.
An uncaring ruler who succeeded would fit the passage's evidence but conflict with B's description. If the commentator had actually shown that lack of concern always led to failure, the case for requiring concern would be much stronger. That isn't what was shown.
- C
We have no indication that the historical evidence comes from a biased or unreliable source. The flaw remains even if the reported failures and the rulers' lack of concern are described accurately. It concerns what that evidence establishes about success.
- DCorrect
Lack of concern is associated with the failures described. The commentator treats that connection as enough to make concern a requirement for success. But uncaring rulers could also have succeeded. D describes the limited evidence without turning it into B's stronger claim that lack of concern always caused failure.
- E
The commentator doesn't need a completely objective method of judging character for this particular inference. Even if we grant every assessment of the failed rulers, we still know nothing about whether successful rulers could lack concern. E misses that gap.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.