PrepTest 147, Section 4, Question 16
Voter: Our prime minister is evidently seeking a(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AKao must be(18 more words not shown)
- BFranklin will lose(18 more words not shown)
- CRamirez is evidently(21 more words not shown)
- DThompson must be(28 more words not shown)
- EMcKinsey must have(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Couldn't the prime minister be traveling to do the job they already have? Diplomatic visits would explain plenty of time abroad without any search for a new position.
The first sentence is the conclusion here: the travel is supposed to prove that the prime minister is looking for an international job. We know that because the other statements are offered as reasons to believe it, not because conclusions must come first. But the rule only tells us what job-seekers would do. It doesn't say everyone doing that thing is a job-seeker.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, look for another argument that treats a requirement for one activity as proof that the activity is happening. We need the same mistake, not merely another bad argument.
Working the answers
- A
The rule says most candidates play golf, and Kao is a candidate. Kao could be among the candidates who don't play, so the conclusion that Kao must be a golfer is too certain. But the original takes a rule covering everyone seeking the job and reasons backward from the required travel. A instead takes a rule about most members of a group and treats it as covering a particular member for sure.
- B
Better ideas and experience might help someone win, but other factors could matter. Franklin might be more popular despite having weaker policies. This argument assumes those advantages settle the election; it doesn't start with a rule that everyone pursuing one activity displays a certain behavior and then use that behavior to identify the activity.
- C
A signal changing as Ramirez approaches could be a coincidence. It doesn't establish that Ramirez controls the signal. The argument mistakes the timing of two events for evidence of control, rather than working backward from a stated requirement.
- DCorrect
Loan negotiations require a bank visit, just as the international job search supposedly requires foreign travel. Thompson visits the bank, so the argument concludes that Thompson is negotiating a loan. But Thompson might be wiring money or getting a credit card. The bank visit doesn't uniquely identify its purpose, just as traveling abroad doesn't uniquely identify a job search.
- E
Failure to prove that McKinsey has never committed a crime doesn't prove that McKinsey has committed one. The argument treats missing proof of innocence as proof of guilt. It doesn't use a required behavior to conclude that a particular activity is occurring.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.