PrepTest 148, Section 4, Question 16
Last year, a software company held a contest(44 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(6 more words not shown)
- Ainfers a causal(8 more words not shown)
- Btakes a condition(15 more words not shown)
- Cinfers that every(21 more words not shown)
- Dhas a premise(7 more words not shown)
- Econstructs a generalization(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Juan bought the shirt. Maybe he got it in a promotional giveaway. Entering the contest is one way to receive the new-logo T-shirt, but the rules don't say it's the only way.
What we’re looking for
The distinction is simple: entering guarantees a shirt; owning a shirt doesn't guarantee entry. To conclude that Juan entered, we'd need to rule out other ways he could have obtained it. The flaw answer should describe treating a guaranteed route to an outcome as though that route were required.
Working the answers
- A
The argument isn't based on observing that contest entry and shirt ownership tend to occur together. It gives a rule promising a shirt to everyone who enters. The mistake is using shirt ownership to identify how Juan got it, not deriving a causal relationship from a mere observed association.
- BCorrect
Entering is sufficient: do it, and the contest rules give you a shirt. The argument treats entering as necessary: if you have the shirt, you must have entered. But a purchase or another giveaway could produce the same result. One way to get the shirt has been mistaken for the only way.
- C
The conclusion concerns Juan, not every member of a group. Nor does the argument start with a feature belonging to the company or the group as a whole and assign that feature to each individual. It applies a rule about contest entrants in the wrong direction.
- D
Neither premise already assumes that Juan entered. One gives the contest rule; the other says he has the shirt. Those are separate claims that don't establish entry. The conclusion is unsupported because other routes to shirt ownership remain possible, not because a premise merely repeats the conclusion.
- E
The argument isn't using Juan as its one example to establish a rule about everyone. It starts with a general contest rule and tries to reach a conclusion about one person. That direction matters: a broad conclusion from one case is a different mistake from the one here.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.