PrepTest 144, Section 2, Question 21
Although the first humans came to Australia 56,000(61 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AEven though high(38 more words not shown)
- BEven though I(48 more words not shown)
- CEven though Lena,(49 more words not shown)
- DEven though this(41 more words not shown)
- EEven though the(33 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why assume the humans brought only one disease?
Maybe something other than human-borne disease caused the extinctions. A change in climate, for example, could be worth investigating. But the argument's reason for rejecting disease is that no single disease could kill animals from so many different species.
That leaves a large opening. Humans could have carried several diseases. One might have killed certain mammals, another might have killed certain birds, and together they might have affected all the species that disappeared. The limitation on any one disease doesn't establish the limitation on the diseases together.
What we’re looking for
For a parallel flaw, I'd initially look for another claim rejecting a cause because no single thing could produce the whole effect. The central problem is that the argument overlooks what several things could accomplish together.
Working the answers
- A
This does reject a proposed cause, but for a different reason. High interest rates aren't always harmful, so the argument concludes that they probably didn't cause this downturn. Whether something always has an effect doesn't settle whether it had that effect this time. There is no move from what one thing cannot accomplish to what several things cannot accomplish together.
- BCorrect
Repairing an apartment may not initially look like explaining an extinction, but the relationships match. The two people correspond to the different diseases. The broken window and door correspond to the different species affected. Neither person can perform every repair, just as no one disease can kill all the species.
But perhaps I can fix the window and you can fix the door. Together we could repair the apartment without either of us having every required skill. Likewise, multiple diseases could together kill the species without any one disease being fatal to all of them. Both arguments wrongly extend an individual limitation to the combined group.
- C
The friends might compromise on a restaurant that not everyone likes, or travel beyond the immediate area. The absence of a nearby restaurant that satisfies all three doesn't establish that they'll go home. But the problem isn't that several restaurants could combine their abilities to accomplish what none could do alone. It concerns the options the friends might accept for a shared outing.
- D
A painting from the last forty years could be among the exceptions to a general pattern about the last hundred years. Most recent art not being great doesn't establish that this particular work isn't great. D assumes this painting fits what is true of most paintings. The original instead assumes several diseases together cannot do what one disease cannot do alone.
- E
Sometimes reducing symptoms establishes that some people can benefit even without complete prevention. Some people could still receive no benefit even though others have milder symptoms. E wrongly treats evidence of a benefit for some recipients as a reason to rule out anyone receiving no benefit. It doesn't compare the limits of one contributor with the effects of several contributors together.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.