PrepTest 149, Section 4, Question 14
Columnist: Wildlife activists have proposed that the practice(63 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AIt takes a(16 more words not shown)
- BIt rejects an(22 more words not shown)
- CIt fails to(14 more words not shown)
- DIt rejects an(12 more words not shown)
- EIt rejects a(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Reducing the danger would still matter.
The cable TV lines aren't themselves carrying the dangerous electricity. They give animals an easier way to get near the power lines that can electrocute them. Finding some electrocutions where the cable lines are underground doesn't show that adding that extra climbing route makes no difference.
Imagine five animals being electrocuted in a year without the overhead cable lines, compared with five million with them. Those are deliberately hypothetical numbers, but the contrast makes the point: the same problem can exist under both arrangements while being vastly worse under one. A proposal could prevent many deaths without preventing every death.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, focus on that missing comparison of how much harm occurs. The columnist treats a remaining problem as enough to dismiss an argument for reducing it.
Working the answers
- A
There isn't a stated rule giving a sufficient condition for an argument to be inadequate that the columnist then treats as necessary. The columnist cites continuing electrocutions and uses them to reject the proposal's rationale. A's requirement-versus-guarantee description doesn't capture the missing possibility of partial improvement.
- BCorrect
The argument for the proposal is rejected because electrocutions would still occur, as though only complete elimination would make the argument worthwhile. But the activists' stated concern is that overhead cable lines make dangerous access easier. Removing that route could reduce the number of animals electrocuted even if other routes remain. The columnist hasn't shown that the proposed reduction would fail.
- C
We don't need an additional benefit unrelated to electrocutions. The proposal might deliver a worthwhile amount of its intended benefit: fewer animals getting electrocuted. C looks for extra advantages, while the actual mistake is failing to consider a partial reduction in the problem already being discussed.
- D
The columnist gives an observation about electrocutions rather than attacking the activists' motives, intelligence, or character. We can question the inference from that observation without treating it as a personal attack.
- E
No competing proposal is offered as a reason to reject this one. Evidence that animals are sometimes electrocuted with underground cables describes a remaining problem; it isn't a separate effective plan for solving it. E substitutes a comparison of solutions for the columnist's objection about incomplete results.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.