PrepTest 148, Section 4, Question 1
Community organizer: Before last year's community cleanup, only(52 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the community(13 more words not shown)
- Ageneralizes about the(13 more words not shown)
- Btakes for granted(12 more words not shown)
- Cconfuses a condition(14 more words not shown)
- Doverlooks the possibility(13 more words not shown)
- Edefines a term(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if everyone actually signed up this time? Last year, people might have brought a partner, forgotten to register, or simply turned up on the day. That would explain why 77 registrations became more than 100 participants. But this year's 85 registrations don't guarantee another group of extra arrivals.
If the same pattern holds, the organizer has reason to be optimistic. The problem is relying on that one past event to be confident about this year's result. Perhaps registration was more thorough this year and the 85 already includes everyone who plans to attend. Then even perfect attendance by those registered would leave the cleanup short of 100.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, focus on the move from one year's experience to the next year's prediction. We can accept that 100 participants would make the event successful while questioning whether the organizer has shown that 100 will come.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The organizer uses one similar event to predict this event's outcome. Last year's extra turnout might have depended on circumstances that don't apply now, such as people bringing unregistered partners. More registrations this year don't establish that the same gap between registrations and attendance will recur.
- B
The prediction doesn't require the same individuals to return. An entirely different group could supply this year's 100 participants. The argument depends on the turnout pattern repeating, not on every person from last year's group coming back.
- C
The rule says at least 100 participants will be enough for success. The organizer isn't reasoning from success back to at least 100, or claiming that fewer than 100 could never succeed. The unsupported move is predicting the turnout, not using the success rule in the wrong direction.
- D
Outsiders could help make up the total. Their participation wouldn't undermine the claim that enough people will attend. We need to question the organizer's confidence in the number, not point to another possible source of participants.
- E
The passage gives a threshold for success, but it doesn't guarantee a positive label whatever happens. Fewer than 100 participants wouldn't meet the stated sufficient standard. The flaw is assuming the event will reach the threshold based on last year, not defining every possible turnout as a success.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.