Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 3 · Question 25

Incorrect. This answer is a Part vs. Whole flaw, but it goes in the opposite direction. It assumes that the best teams have the best players, not the other way around. If the argument had concluded that the Olympic team would be the best since it was made up of these "best" players, then it would be correct, but it doesn't conclude that.

Incorrect. This argument is flawed in that it doesn't clearly state the criteria for success (is a single salesperson exceeding the goals enough for that), and it doesn't state how this one salesperson compares to the others.

Incorrect. Another business adding a department/division? This answer is suspect in that answers that have the same or similar subject matter are usually traps. This answer, however, doesn't make a jump from part to whole because it never establishes that those hired are "the best." It establishes only that they're similar to the best, so this answer has a broader comparison flaw, not a part to whole flaw.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A corporation staffed a new division with the best workers it had ever hired, so it must be among the best divisions it's ever had.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument treats what is true of the workers hired for a division as establishing the characteristics of the division overall. That's a standard example of a Part vs. Whole (specifically, part to whole) flaw.

The LSAT will frequently make this jump—between employees and the company/division they work for—so definitely notice this when it shows up!

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that the players making up the All-Star Teams are the best, and it concludes that the Teams are therefore the best. That's the same jump from characteristics of the parts to characteristics of the whole, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
There are some subjects that the LSAT almost always uses for certain flaws. New laws are generally correlation/causation flaws. Nature/nurture questions will frequently ignore whichever of those two isn't in the conclusion. Paranormal phenomena are generally used for Absence of Evidence flaws. And employees or businesses are frequently used in jumping between parts and wholes (just as teams/team members are). When you notice that a certain subject has been present in several arguments with the same flaw, that's a pattern you can exploit in the future.

Incorrect. This argument never discusses the members of the teams, so it can't have a part to whole flaw.