PrepTest 143, Section 4, Question 26
Economist: Countries with an uneducated population are destined(41 more words not shown)
The pattern of flawed reasoning(16 more words not shown)
- AAnimal species with(34 more words not shown)
- BPeople incapable of(35 more words not shown)
- CPeople who cannot(38 more words not shown)
- DPoets who create(39 more words not shown)
- EPeople who dislike(37 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Even an educated population could face political turmoil.
The economist says an uneducated population leads to economic and political weakness, and educated populations have governments seriously committed to funding education. Let's grant those claims. They still make me question the final guarantee: any country whose government makes that commitment will avoid weakness.
Education could be important without being enough. What if a country has educated people but also severe political conflict or some other problem its education doesn't solve? Meeting an educational requirement wouldn't automatically remove every obstacle to economic and political strength.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, my starting point is that move from a requirement to a guarantee. We should also keep track of the extra statement about financial commitment, so the answer matches the whole argument rather than just sounding like the same general mistake.
Working the answers
- A
This compares the vulnerability of species with narrow and broad diets, using the possible loss of a food supply to explain the difference. A narrow diet makes losing that food a problem; a broad diet offers alternatives. It doesn't introduce a separate indicator of a broad diet and then use that indicator to guarantee survival. Whether its survival claim needs more support or not, it lacks the economist's chain involving education, financial commitment, and avoiding weakness.
- BCorrect
Match the three ideas carefully. Having empathy corresponds to having an educated population. Being a good candidate for office corresponds to avoiding economic and political weakness. Being able to manipulate others corresponds to the government's financial commitment.
The first statement says people without empathy aren't good candidates, just as uneducated countries are destined for weakness. The next says people with empathy can manipulate others, just as educated countries have financially committed governments. The conclusion then says people who can manipulate others are good candidates, just as financially committed countries will avoid weakness.
That reveals a second gap worth making explicit. Financial commitment doesn't establish that a population is educated; we were only told educated populations have that commitment. Likewise, being able to manipulate people doesn't establish empathy; we were only told empathetic people have that ability.
Even if we supplied that missing step, we'd still have the first problem we noticed. An empathetic person might be unable to handle the responsibilities of office. Empathy can be required without guaranteeing competence, just as education can be required without guaranteeing a strong country. B makes both unsupported moves in the same arrangement.
- C
This moves from a claim about people who cannot give orders and lack understanding to a claim about people who can give orders and have understanding. It involves only those two attributes. The economist also introduces a third attribute—financial commitment—as something associated with education, then concludes from that attribute that the country will avoid weakness. C lacks that additional link and the resulting two-step mistake.
- D
This tries to establish that high-quality poets have studied traditional poetry, using the tendency of untrained poets to be inventive and the rarity of high-quality inventive poetry. The conclusion makes prior study a requirement for high quality. The economist goes in the other direction: an observed financial commitment is taken to guarantee the desirable result. D also turns tendencies and rarity into a general classification, rather than reversing the economist's two stated relationships.
- E
This keeps discussing people who dislike exercise. It adds their tendency to avoid activity and concludes that a subgroup who also like eating probably won't lose weight. The economist contrasts uneducated with educated populations, associates the educated group with a separate feature, and then uses that feature to guarantee avoiding weakness. E never builds that arrangement. Its question is whether the food-intake and exercise claims support a probability of weight loss, not whether a separate indicator guarantees success.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.