PrepTest 157, Section 3, Question 14
Food critic: One of the chief competitors of(37 more words not shown)
The food critic's argument is(6 more words not shown)
- Arelies upon testimony(6 more words not shown)
- Billicitly presumes that(15 more words not shown)
- Cconfuses a necessary(14 more words not shown)
- Dtakes for granted(18 more words not shown)
- Efails to consider(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A competitor says the okra isn't reliably fresh. My first reaction is to question the source. Are we hearing a fair criticism or an attempt to hurt Chris's business? A competitor could be dishonest, but could also be telling the truth.
What we’re looking for
The food critic connects that claim to whether customers can count on good seafood gumbo. For a flaw question, my initial guess is that the critic may be relying on an allegation without establishing that it's true. Let's test that guess carefully against what the critic actually says. A suspicion about the source is only useful if the argument really depends on accepting that source.
Working the answers
- A
This looks like the initial prediction, but look back at “If this claim were true.” The critic hasn't simply accepted the competitor's allegation. The argument considers what would follow if it were true. We can analyze that conditional claim without trusting the competitor. So the source's possible bias isn't the mistake we need.
That sends us back to the reasoning inside the claim. The best seafood gumbo requires fresh okra. Does good seafood gumbo require it too? Something could be good without being the best. That's a different issue from whether the competitor is honest.
- B
This would describe assuming that because an ingredient isn't fresh, the finished dish isn't fresh either: transferring the same quality from an ingredient to the whole dish. But this argument moves from fresh okra to good gumbo. Freshness and goodness are different qualities. B doesn't identify the actual change from the best gumbo to good gumbo.
- C
The critic doesn't claim that having fresh okra guarantees good gumbo. Instead, the critic treats fresh okra as something you must have for good gumbo, based on its being required for the best gumbo. “Enough to guarantee” and “required for” are different. This answer gives the wrong version of the mistake.
- DCorrect
The argument takes an ingredient required for the best seafood gumbo and treats it as required for good seafood gumbo. Maybe fresh okra is what elevates a good dish into an exceptional one. If gumbo made without it could still be good, unreliable access to fresh okra wouldn't show that customers can't count on good gumbo. The critic needs to establish that stronger requirement rather than assume it.
- E
Fresh okra on some days doesn't settle reliability. Customers could get an excellent bowl occasionally and still be unable to count on it on a randomly chosen visit. The argument allows that possibility. Its problem is treating what is required for the best gumbo as necessary for good gumbo.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.