PrepTest 159, Section 3, Question 10
For years, Glenville had the highest apartment rents(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- ABecause Brenda's kitten's(17 more words not shown)
- BBecause Brenda's kitten(20 more words not shown)
- CBecause Brenda's kitten(15 more words not shown)
- DBecause Brenda's kitten(13 more words not shown)
- EBecause Brenda's kitten(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe Glenville got more expensive and other towns got more expensive faster.
Suppose Glenville's rent rose from $1,000 to $1,100. Meanwhile, Whoville went from $900 to $1,200, and another town went from $850 to $1,300. Glenville started above both towns and ended below both. Its ranking fell to third even though its own rent increased.
That's enough to break the argument. Glenville's rent might have fallen, but losing the top spot doesn't establish that. A ranking tells us how Glenville compares with other places; a price change tells us how Glenville now compares with Glenville before.
What we’re looking for
We need another argument that confuses those two comparisons. Look for something that drops behind something else and is therefore said to have decreased, even though the other thing might simply have increased faster.
Working the answers
- A
This moves from lower veterinary bills to better health. That connection could be questionable, but it isn't our mistake. There is no before-and-after change in the animals' relative positions and no inference that one animal's bills or health decreased because another overtook it.
- BCorrect
The kitten plays Glenville's role, and the puppy plays the other towns' role. The kitten used to be larger but is now smaller relative to the puppy. That doesn't mean the kitten shrank. Both animals could have grown, with the puppy growing faster, just as both towns' rents could rise while Whoville passed Glenville. B makes the same unsupported jump from a change in relative position to a decrease in the thing being compared.
- C
Being born first doesn't establish being acquired first. Brenda could have adopted the younger puppy before adopting the older kitten. This confuses two different kinds of chronological order. It doesn't infer a decrease from being overtaken on the same measure.
- D
Eating less than a puppy doesn't tell us whether a kitten is eating too much for its own needs. But this is a comparison of food intake used to predict weight, not a before-and-after ranking used to infer a decline. Neither animal is said to have moved ahead of the other over time.
- E
The kitten's increased friendliness doesn't establish that the puppy has become friendlier in return. That assumes a change in one animal's behavior is matched by a change in the other. Our original argument instead assumes that falling behind another place means one's own amount has gone down. E doesn't reproduce that pattern.
More Parallel Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.