PrepTest 153, Section 2, Question 25
Katelin says that we will be hit by(31 more words not shown)
The questionable pattern of reasoning(16 more words not shown)
- AJorge says that(34 more words not shown)
- BBo says that(35 more words not shown)
- CWanda says that(29 more words not shown)
- DMy chemistry professor(34 more words not shown)
- EDr. Bowder says(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does Katelin even know there is a car show?
She says a major snowstorm will hit tomorrow. Maybe that prediction comes from a weather report; maybe it's just a guess. But whether the storm actually arrives isn't the main problem here. We're trying to infer what Katelin believes about something else.
We know that a major storm would cancel the antique car show. Does Katelin know that rule? Does she follow car shows at all? She could be perfectly confident about the weather while having no opinion about an event she's never heard of.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel flaw, keep track of who knows what. A person says one thing. The argument adds a rule connecting that thing to a further result. Then it credits the person with believing the result, without establishing that the person knows the connection. We need that same mistaken step, not merely another argument that mentions someone's beliefs.
Working the answers
- A
Jorge's statement already concerns species becoming extinct under current pollution levels. The added information says pollution might not be reduced. This tries to use a possible continuation of the current conditions to attribute an expectation of extinction to him. We don't get the original move from a belief about one event, through a separate rule, to a belief about a different event. The extinction outcome was already in Jorge's own conditional claim.
- BCorrect
Bo's claim about poorly drained soil corresponds to Katelin's claim about the snowstorm. The rule about raspberries failing to grow in poorly drained soil corresponds to the rule about a storm canceling the show. Finally, the argument attributes the resulting belief to Bo.
But does Bo know anything about growing raspberries? He might know that rainwater sits in his yard while having no idea what that means for raspberry bushes. The argument silently gives Bo gardening knowledge, just as the original gives Katelin knowledge of the car show and its cancellation rule.
- C
This uses what most people who express Wanda's view believe as evidence about Wanda. The original never surveys people with Katelin's weather belief. It adds a rule about what the weather would do and assumes Katelin knows the implication. C's inference from similar people's beliefs has a different basis.
- D
This adds a problem with combining 'most' statements. Imagine ten chemists: six are good at math, but none are good at chess. There could be ninety other people who are good at both math and chess. Most chemists would be good at math, and most math-skilled people would be good at chess, yet none of our chemists would be good at chess.
So D's two group statements don't form the definite connection we had between a major storm and cancellation. It also concludes only what the professor might believe, whereas the original says Katelin probably believes the result. B matches the original belief-attribution mistake much more closely.
- E
This explicitly says Dr. Bowder knows the rule, removing the knowledge gap we were worried about. Its error is different. Improved circulation increases alertness, but something could increase alertness another way. Knowing that garlic increases alertness doesn't establish that it improves circulation. The argument works backward from an effect to one possible cause.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.