PrepTest 145, Section 4, Question 25
Many conceptual categories are parts of dichotomous (distinct(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AReview by outside(26 more words not shown)
- BRecent clinical trials(27 more words not shown)
- CCurrent highway safety(18 more words not shown)
- DThe longer fruit(40 more words not shown)
- EThis budget is(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Some categories don't fit the things we put in them. Why throw out the whole way of classifying things?
If some life forms have characteristics of both plants and animals, that challenges treating those two categories as mutually exclusive in those cases. It doesn't establish that every other either-or distinction is useless. The discovery could tell us to revise particular classifications rather than abandon mutually exclusive categories generally.
What we’re looking for
The argument moves from problems with some long-held distinctions to a recommendation against this broad kind of classification. For the parallel-flaw question, look for the same overreaction: some members or uses of a category have a problem, so the argument recommends giving up the whole practice.
Working the answers
- A
The evidence calls for replacing all of this company's computers, and the conclusion says that not all are powerful enough. That isn't a move from a problem in some cases to abandoning a whole category. The conclusion is more limited than the recommendation described in the evidence. Whatever further questions we might ask about the consultants' advice, it doesn't follow our pattern.
- BCorrect
Some antianxiety drugs have serious problems: they are addictive and can have life-threatening side effects. The argument then recommends stopping the use of drugs for anxiety altogether. That extends a problem with some drugs to the entire method of treatment, just as the original extends problems with some classifications to mutually exclusive classification generally.
The drugs needn't be ineffective for the comparison to work. Their harmful effects supply the objection to particular examples. The unsupported step is treating those examples as a reason to abandon the whole category, without addressing drugs that might not have those problems.
- C
The evidence says all intoxicated drivers are dangerous, and the recommendation concerns getting that same group off the road. It doesn't start with only some problematic drivers and expand the recommendation to every driver, or even to a larger group than the evidence describes. The scope matches in a way our original argument's scope does not.
- D
This recommends a precaution for these peaches because their age makes rot more likely. It doesn't find a problem with some fruit and recommend abandoning fruit generally. Its reasoning concerns a particular case and a risk that increases with time, so it lacks the move from selected failures to a sweeping rejection.
- E
The criticism concerns this budget's own assumption about future revenue, and the recommendation is to replace this budget. The argument doesn't conclude that budgeting itself should be abandoned because one budget is flawed. It targets the particular item whose basis has been challenged, which is what the original fails to do.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.