PrepTest 146, Section 1, Question 7
Editorialist: The city council is considering increasing the(83 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AThe argument draws(23 more words not shown)
- BThe argument fails(30 more words not shown)
- CThe argument fails(24 more words not shown)
- DThe argument confuses(30 more words not shown)
- EThe argument fails(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The latest technology thirty years ago isn't the latest technology today.
Imagine an airport designed for 100 flights a day that now wants to handle 120. The council members think newer safety systems can make that possible without sacrificing safety. I'm open to that if the systems work, although simply calling them new doesn't prove they will.
The editorialist takes the opposite position: more traffic will reduce safety. The evidence is that airports exceeding their design capacity had safety problems thirty years ago, even with the best technology then available. But today's systems might handle traffic that those older systems couldn't. The studies can be accurate without settling what will happen at this airport now.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, we want that missing comparison. The argument treats failures with the best equipment of an earlier era as enough to rule out success with the best equipment today.
Working the answers
- A
We aren't told that the evidence comes from very few airports. If the argument studied only three unusual airports and generalized from them, a limited sample might be worth questioning. Here we have numerous studies, without enough detail to establish that specific complaint. The problem we can identify is their age relative to the technology being proposed.
- BCorrect
Whether extra traffic can be handled safely may depend on what the technology can actually do. If modern equipment is much better at handling the extra traffic, the old studies won't establish that the new proposal reduces safety. B identifies the difference hidden by using 'latest technology' for two different eras.
- C
The council members might know the old studies very well and still think today's equipment changes the result. Or they might never have read them. Their awareness doesn't resolve whether adding traffic with the new technology would reduce safety.
- D
The editorialist does offer evidence: the studies of airports that increased traffic. The problem is whether those studies carry over to today's proposal. D would describe a different argument, such as 'Nobody has proved that walking down this street is safe, so it must be dangerous.' That treats a missing demonstration of safety as evidence of danger. Our argument instead relies on actual, potentially outdated findings.
- E
The conclusion is that safety would decrease, not that the proposal must be rejected regardless of its benefits. Even if a small increase in risk brought a huge improvement in convenience, safety could still decrease. Deciding whether that tradeoff is worth making is a separate question.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.