PrepTest 147, Section 1, Question 13
Weingarten claims that keeping animals in zoos is(49 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(6 more words not shown)
- Atakes for granted(7 more words not shown)
- Binappropriately generalizes from(3 more words not shown)
- Cmisrepresents the conclusion(4 more words not shown)
- Dtakes a necessary(14 more words not shown)
- Erejects a claim(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
There are questions we could ask about Weingarten's argument. Could a zoo provide a suitable habitat? Could it serve a purpose such as conservation rather than existing merely for amusement? Those possibilities would challenge what he says about zoos.
But the reply doesn't make either argument. It says he approves of pets even though pets supposedly raise the same concerns. That might expose an inconsistency in his views. It doesn't establish that his claim about zoos is wrong.
What we’re looking for
Even granting the comparison with pets, perhaps he is right about zoos and hasn't thought through what that implies about pet ownership. For the flaw, I'd look for the leap from 'his views don't fit together' to 'his view about zoos should be rejected.'
Working the answers
- A
Approving of pet ownership doesn't require owning a pet. Someone could think keeping pets is fine without keeping one personally. The author relies on Weingarten's approval of the practice, so it doesn't need to assume anything about his own household.
- B
An improper generalization might look like this: one kind of animal does well in a particular zoo, so all animals must do well in all zoos. That isn't the reasoning here. The author compares Weingarten's positions on two practices and uses the alleged inconsistency to reject one position. It doesn't project a particular animal's experience onto a broader group.
- C
We're told Weingarten claims that keeping animals in zoos is unethical, and that is the claim the author attacks. Nothing indicates that the author has substituted a different conclusion for his actual one. The problem is the proposed reason for rejecting the claim, not a demonstrated distortion of what the claim says.
- D
This would involve treating a requirement for being unethical as though meeting that requirement guaranteed a practice was unethical. The author doesn't make that move. It argues that Weingarten approves of another practice with the same features and therefore should not be believed about zoos. That's an attack based on his other view, not a confusion about what a requirement guarantees.
- ECorrect
The author rejects Weingarten's zoo claim because he holds another view the author considers inconsistent with it. But inconsistency alone doesn't tell us which view is wrong. He could be correct that zoos are unethical and mistaken in approving of pets. Pointing to that tension in his beliefs doesn't establish that keeping animals in zoos is ethical.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.