PrepTest 155, Section 1, Question 17
For several years the Technology Institute has used(45 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(11 more words not shown)
- Atreats a phenomenon(22 more words not shown)
- Buses a lack(22 more words not shown)
- Cconcludes that something(13 more words not shown)
- Duses a national(11 more words not shown)
- Econfuses a factor's(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Below average doesn't mean worse than before.
Only one-third of these graduates passed the certification test. That's a disappointing comparison with the national average, but what was the Institute's pass rate before the new curriculum?
Imagine it was 10 percent. Raising it to about 33 percent would be a substantial improvement, even if other schools still did much better. We need an earlier result from this same program before we can treat the current result as evidence of a decline.
There could also be other reasons this school's graduates perform differently from graduates nationally. Perhaps the students enter with different levels of preparation. A low pass rate doesn't isolate the effect of the curriculum. But the most direct problem with 'lowered' is the missing before-and-after comparison.
What we’re looking for
For the flaw question, look for that distinction: the argument uses evidence of being below other programs now to conclude that its own instruction has deteriorated.
Working the answers
- A
This would require evidence suggesting that the poor results caused the curriculum change, rather than resulted from it. For example, a history of low scores might have prompted the school to introduce the experimental program. That's possible, but the passage doesn't give evidence for that history. A's criticism requires a feature the actual argument lacks.
- B
The author doesn't simply say, 'We have no evidence that instruction improved, so it must have worsened.' The author cites a particular result: a one-third pass rate below the national average. The problem is that this comparison doesn't establish a decline. B describes an argument from missing evidence rather than the misuse of the evidence supplied.
- CCorrect
The conclusion says quality diminished, while the evidence says the current performance is below average. Those are different comparisons. Our 10-percent-to-33-percent example shows why: the program could improve and still trail other programs. Being below the national average doesn't tell us which direction this school has moved.
- D
We don't need the precise national average to see this problem. Whether it is 50 percent or 80 percent, the Institute's one-third result is below it. Neither figure would tell us whether the Institute's own earlier results were better or worse. Providing the exact national number wouldn't repair the missing comparison.
- E
We aren't given a rule saying some factor is required for passing and then told that having that factor guarantees a pass. For instance, the argument never says diligent study is necessary and mistakes it for a guarantee. Its error concerns present performance versus a change over time, not a requirement versus a sufficient condition.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.