PrepTest 149, Section 3, Question 26
Decreased reliance on fossil fuels is required if(34 more words not shown)
The flawed pattern of reasoning(16 more words not shown)
- AIf we end(16 more words not shown)
- BDaily exercise guarantees(16 more words not shown)
- CGoing to college(29 more words not shown)
- DKeeping good teachers(28 more words not shown)
- EPreventing abuse of(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
One way to reduce fossil-fuel use isn't necessarily the only way.
The incentives would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. But perhaps people could use less energy instead—say, by replacing some car trips with bike trips. That might not be an easy policy to implement, but it exposes the logical gap. The argument hasn't established that incentives are required to get the reduction we need.
Think of saying, 'Being eaten by a shark would kill Bob. Bob died, so he must have been eaten by a shark.' There are other ways Bob could have died. Similarly, there could be other ways to reduce fossil-fuel reliance.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, keep all three roles straight: ending global warming is the goal; reduced fossil-fuel reliance is a requirement for that goal; incentives are one way to meet the requirement. The conclusion wrongly makes that particular method a requirement for the goal itself. Also, meeting the stated requirement isn't a promise that every other obstacle to ending warming is solved.
Working the answers
- A
This chain works: ending unemployment would end poverty, and ending poverty would end hunger. So ending unemployment would end hunger. A follows the two given routes forward; it doesn't turn one possible route into the only way to reach a goal. We're looking for another flawed argument, so this valid chain doesn't match.
- B
This is tempting. Exercise guarantees good health, but that doesn't establish that exercise is required for good health. So B does make the same basic mistake of treating a guaranteed route as a requirement.
But where did the happy-life premise go? It says good health ensures a happy life, yet the conclusion only connects exercise and good health. Our original uses all three roles: a final goal, a requirement for that goal, and a method of meeting that requirement. B's second premise doesn't play the corresponding role in its conclusion. Keep it in mind, but look for a match to the whole argument.
- C
A professional job requires college, and college requires high-school graduation. Therefore, a professional job requires high-school graduation. Both links are requirements, and the conclusion properly carries that requirement through the chain. Unlike the original, C doesn't start with a method that would be enough to meet a requirement and then wrongly declare that method necessary.
- DCorrect
Improving education corresponds to ending global warming. Keeping good teachers corresponds to reducing fossil-fuel reliance. Raising salaries corresponds to providing energy incentives.
Keeping teachers is required for the goal, and raising salaries would keep them. But perhaps improving their work-life balance would also keep them. The conclusion wrongly treats salary increases as required for improving education, just as the original treats incentives as required for ending warming. D preserves the entire three-part structure that B leaves incomplete.
- E
This is flawed, but differently. Preventing abuse requires expanded education, and expanded education requires increased cooperation. Those premises make cooperation a requirement for prevention. E then turns around and says cooperation guarantees prevention. The original's second premise gives a method that would produce the needed intermediate result; E's second premise gives another requirement. E reverses a chain of requirements rather than declaring one available method indispensable.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.