PrepTest 154, Section 2, Question 10
Wei: A respected automobile expert claims that most(51 more words not shown)
The pattern of flawed reasoning(19 more words not shown)
- AMy veterinarian told(42 more words not shown)
- BCar dealers claim(36 more words not shown)
- CA high-ranking traffic(40 more words not shown)
- DBoot manufacturers claim(31 more words not shown)
- EA study of(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The expert said most cars, not every car. Wei's two cars could be exceptions.
The warning is that most cars develop transmission problems without regular service. Wei skipped the service and had no problems. That might be fortunate, but it doesn't establish that the expert's general claim is false. The claim already leaves room for some cars to do well without the recommended care.
Imagine someone claiming that applying to law school with a 145 LSAT score usually goes badly. Someone else replies, 'But I know a person who did that and became a successful lawyer.' That example doesn't disprove the hypothetical warning: usually leaves room for successes. We aren't deciding whether the warning is accurate. We're seeing why one success wouldn't settle that question. Wei makes the same move with two cars.
We might also wonder whether an automobile expert has a financial incentive to recommend service. But Wei doesn't attack anyone's motives.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, match the argument actually made: an expert says most things suffer a problem without certain care; the speaker's own example skipped the care and escaped the problem; the speaker treats that exception as disproving the expert.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The veterinarian corresponds to the automobile expert. Most cats without yearly cleaning develop gum problems, just as most cars without regular transmission service develop problems. The owner's cat went without the recommended care and had no problem, matching Wei's cars.
Then comes the same mistake: declaring the expert wrong based on a case the word 'most' already permits. One healthy cat doesn't establish that most cats can safely go without the cleaning, just as two trouble-free cars don't establish that most cars can go without the service.
- B
This rejects a claim because the people making it have a financial interest. Wei doesn't say the expert is wrong because the expert wants to sell service. Wei points to personal examples. The subject matter sounds similar, but the method of attack is different.
- C
Here the speaker followed the precaution by not speeding and still had accidents. Wei did the opposite: he skipped the precaution and escaped the problem. Also, saying speeding increases the chance of an accident doesn't say obeying the speed limit eliminates that chance. C makes a different mistaken response to a claim about risk.
- D
Buying boots on sale doesn't establish that they were poor quality. But it doesn't establish that they were a good pair either, which is what the manufacturers' claim concerns. More importantly, that claim covers good boots generally; it isn't a 'most' statement that expressly leaves room for exceptions. D doesn't reproduce Wei's attempt to disprove a qualified claim with permitted exceptions.
- E
This uses a long-running pattern to make a probable prediction about the next year. It doesn't reject someone's general claim based on a personal exception. The prediction could turn out wrong, but that possibility doesn't make its reasoning match Wei's.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.