PrepTest 156, Section 4, Question 24
A movie studio's script readers discard all proposed(37 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(15 more words not shown)
- ATo be accepted,(42 more words not shown)
- BIf your kitchen(35 more words not shown)
- CIf Bob starts(36 more words not shown)
- DThe police are(42 more words not shown)
- EMost dogs that(39 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if the studio also discards everything submitted on a Tuesday?
The two stated rules give us two ways to get a script thrown out. No agent? Discard it. Incorrect formatting? Discard it. Either problem is enough on its own. But we haven't been told those are the only reasons the readers discard scripts. A third rule about Tuesdays could exist alongside both.
So an agent submitting a correctly formatted script hasn't guaranteed that the readers keep it. That script avoids two problems while possibly running into another one.
What we’re looking for
For a parallel flaw, look for two separate conditions that each produce an outcome. Then the argument should wrongly conclude that avoiding both conditions prevents that outcome. The missing possibility will be another way to reach the same outcome.
Working the answers
- A
This gives requirements for acceptance: meet the deadline and include the form. The entry misses the deadline, so it fails a required condition and cannot be accepted. That reasoning works. The original instead says two particular problems cause rejection, then assumes avoiding them rules out rejection. Missing a requirement and avoiding two known causes are different patterns.
- B
Here the organized kitchen and good cook work together to guarantee a delicious meal. They aren't two separate ways to guarantee it. The conclusion also makes a different mistake: an untasty dinner doesn't identify which part of that combination was missing. Jon could have an organized kitchen but lack cooking skill. The original has two independent routes and incorrectly treats them as exhaustive.
- CCorrect
Daily exercise is one way Bob can improve his fitness. Quitting smoking is another. The conclusion says that if he takes neither route, improvement is impossible. That is the same unsupported leap.
Nothing in the premises rules out another route. For example, they don't exclude improvement from exercising several times a week rather than daily. We don't have to establish that Bob will improve; we only need to see that the two stated routes aren't identified as the only ones. The fitness improvement corresponds to the script being discarded, and the unmentioned route corresponds to our hypothetical Tuesday rule.
- D
The first two statements identify circumstances in which police are allowed to ticket a car. Ruta meets one of those conditions because her permit expired. The conclusion then moves from permission to what police will actually do. That is a different error. To resemble the original, D would need to say her permit is present and unexpired and then assume ticketing is impossible.
- E
'Most' dogs responding to basic commands isn't a rule covering every dog, and the facts about advanced tricks don't create a second independent route to that result. The dogs doing advanced tricks might include exceptions to the general pattern about basic commands. E moves from facts about groups to a claim about every dog in a subgroup, rather than ruling out an outcome after eliminating two stated causes.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.