PrepTest 144, Section 4, Question 5
Scholar: Recently, some religions have updated the language(42 more words not shown)
The scholar's reasoning is flawed(9 more words not shown)
- Anot every religion(9 more words not shown)
- Bmodernization of religious(11 more words not shown)
- Cthe modernization of(15 more words not shown)
- Dmaking texts and(22 more words not shown)
- Ethe growth in(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
More people showed up after the texts and rituals changed. Did they show up because of those changes?
Maybe the religion also gained an appealing new leader, and people came to hear that person. Maybe a bad economy led more people to seek help or comfort through religion. In either case, modernization could happen first and attendance could rise afterward without the modernization causing the increase.
The scholar skips that question and announces that any such modernization will bring in more worshipers. We haven't even established what caused the increases in these particular cases. How can they establish what every future modernization will do?
What we’re looking for
For this flaw question, I want the unsupported causal assumption stated plainly: the scholar treats the changes as the reason attendance increased. We don't need to decide whether updating religious language is a good idea or whether the new rituals preserve the religion's traditions. We need to know what brought the extra people through the door.
Working the answers
- A
The argument doesn't assume that some religions are unable to modernize. It discusses what happens when religions do modernize. Whether every religion can make these changes is separate from whether the changes cause higher attendance.
- B
The message could change substantially and attendance could still rise. Or the message could stay the same and attendance could fall. The scholar is making a claim about the number of worshipers, not the faithfulness of the updated texts to the old teachings.
- CCorrect
This is the step we questioned. The changes happened, and then attendance increased; the scholar takes the changes to have caused the increase. But a new leader or changing economic circumstances could be responsible instead. Without establishing that causal link, the observed sequence doesn't justify predicting that modernization will produce higher attendance elsewhere.
- D
One way to attract worshipers doesn't have to be the only way. The scholar claims modernization will work, but could also believe that a popular new leader or another outreach effort would work. D adds an exclusivity claim the argument doesn't need.
- E
An increase doesn't have to last forever to be an increase. Some new worshipers might eventually stop attending. The scholar's claim that modernization brings in more people doesn't require assuming that none of the growth can ever be reversed.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.