Logical reasoning PrepTest 127 · Section 2 · Question 7

Incorrect. This argument doesn't mention Jack's motives, so it's not parallel.

Incorrect. This answer concludes that Celeste "should" know something, which doesn't match with the stimulus that Dana did intentionally kill the plant.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Dana intentionally watered a plant that didn't need water, killing it, so she meant to kill it.

Answer Anticipation:
As soon as you say the word "intentionally" in this stimulus, you should have started to focus on that. Whenever the LSAT brings up a motive or intention, it frequently jumps between it and outcomes. However, just because something was done intentionally doesn't mean that the given outcome was also intended—it's possible that the outcome was unexpected by the person who engaged in the action. Whenever the LSAT conflates motives, action, and outcome, it's committing a flaw. The correct answer should do the same.

Note that there are a few ways that motives/outcomes can go wrong, so digging in a bit more can be helpful in case multiple answers deal with flawed logic around these concepts. Here, the argument establishes that Dana's action was intentional, and it uses that to conclude that she intended the actual outcome—plant death. That's a jump, though, as Dana could have thought she was helping!

Answer Explanation:
The restaurant owner intended to perform a certain action (taking an item off a menu) that had a given outcome (disappointing Jerry). The argument concludes that this outcome was intended, but that's the same jump in logic made in the stimulus, so this is the right answer.

Key Takeaway:
Motives, actions, and outcomes are all distinct concepts. While an action can be motivated by a desire to achieve an outcome, it's possible that the actual outcome is different from the intended one, and that the action meant to achieve a given outcome was actually counterproductive. Good intentions don't mean good actions don't mean good outcomes, so don't treat them all as establishing each other!

Incorrect. This answer choice isn't flawed, chaining together cause-and-effect relationships. It certainly doesn't discuss intentions (since rain and dams don't have them).

Incorrect. This argument is valid, so it can't be correct in a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question. (Also, note that responsibility is different from intent—you can be responsible for something you didn't intend, such as an accident.)