PrepTest 151, Section 4, Question 23
If a piece of legislation is the result(51 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(9 more words not shown)
- AIt draws a(12 more words not shown)
- BIt concludes that(19 more words not shown)
- CIt relies on(22 more words not shown)
- DIt takes for(13 more words not shown)
- EIt bases a(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Compromise could make everyone unhappy. So could a deal that is simply bad for everyone.
The premise gives us one route to dissatisfaction: competing groups negotiate, each gives something up, and none is satisfied. But the conclusion starts with the dissatisfaction and assumes that particular route must have produced it. What if the agreement is unwelcome because a war has disrupted trade, or because poor economic conditions make its terms unattractive? Those possibilities don't require the groups to have negotiated a compromise.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw, I'd look for the assumption that compromise is the only way to get this result. The premise says compromise produces unhappy groups; it doesn't say unhappy groups prove compromise.
Working the answers
- A
The conclusion adds a claim about how this agreement came about. Neither premise simply states that the agreement resulted from compromise. Giving a rule about compromises and a fact about dissatisfaction isn't merely repeating the desired conclusion; the error lies in how those facts are connected.
- BCorrect
The 'condition' is negotiation and compromise, and the 'result' is none of the groups being satisfied. The premise says the condition leads to the result. The conclusion treats that condition as required for the result: because all the groups are unhappy, there must have been compromise. But another route to an unpopular agreement remains possible. B describes exactly that unsupported step.
- C
The terms keep the same meanings. 'Compromise' still concerns the process of reaching an agreement, and being unhappy still concerns the groups' dissatisfaction. The argument connects them in an unsupported direction; it doesn't secretly redefine either term.
- D
The premise concerns legislation produced by negotiation and compromise. It doesn't claim that every piece of legislation, regardless of how it arises, must fail to satisfy everyone. The argument could allow a different kind of legislation to satisfy all groups and still make the mistaken inference about this unhappy group of parties.
- E
The trade agreement is being treated as a case of the legislation the rule describes. The problem isn't that the rule concerns an unrelated kind of thing. It is that the author starts with the rule's result and tries to infer the condition that would produce it. A relevant rule can still be used in the wrong direction.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.