PrepTest 149, Section 1, Question 16
Fremont: Simpson is not a viable candidate for(51 more words not shown)
Galindo’s argument is flawed in(2 more words not shown)
- Afails to justify(10 more words not shown)
- Bfails to distinguish(6 more words not shown)
- Crests on a(17 more words not shown)
- Dbases a conclusion(17 more words not shown)
- Epresents only one(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Needing something doesn't mean it's all you need.
Fremont treats an oil-industry background as a requirement for being a viable chief executive. We could question that: perhaps strong business experience would be enough. But Galindo doesn't make that argument. Galindo shows us someone who had oil experience and still performed terribly.
What we’re looking for
Those claims can both be true. Experience could be required while judgment, management skills, or other qualities also matter. The former executive's failure shows that experience alone doesn't guarantee success. It doesn't show that someone without it is a viable candidate. For the flaw, look for the confusion between having something you need and having enough to succeed.
Working the answers
- A
Galindo doesn't accuse Fremont of personal bias. The response offers the previous executive's failure as evidence about the value of industry experience. We should criticize what that example establishes, not add an unstated accusation about Fremont's motives.
- B
Both speakers discuss experience in the oil industry. The problem isn't that one treats unrelated experience as relevant. It is that Galindo answers a claim about whether industry experience is needed with an example showing that industry experience doesn't guarantee success.
- CCorrect
Fremont's reasoning requires an oil-industry background: without it, Simpson isn't viable. Galindo responds as though Fremont promised success to anyone with that background. The last executive can meet a requirement and still fail for other reasons. That failure doesn't establish that the requirement can be skipped.
- D
Galindo says experience is no guarantee, not that it is always irrelevant. Experience could contribute a great deal to success without ensuring it. Even the failed executive might have benefited from experience while making serious mistakes for other reasons. D attributes a stronger dismissal to Galindo than the argument makes.
- E
One example really is enough to disprove a guarantee. If someone with decades of experience failed, experience can't guarantee success in every case. The problem isn't needing more examples to establish that limited point. It's that this point doesn't answer Fremont's actual claim about a requirement.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.