Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 3 · Question 14

Incorrect. This answer jumps from a relative term—"spend more"—to an absolute one—Monique spends "most" of her money on housing. That's a different flaw.

Incorrect. This answer jumps from premise about probability ("typically") to a conclusion that's certain ("would"), a different flaw.

Incorrect. This answer is applying a generalization—what is true of most farms in the country—to a specific instance—Ward's farm. Different flaw.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Most air pollution is from cities, where the population is highest, so moving people to rural areas will decrease air pollution.

Answer Anticipation:
There's a key phrase in the conclusion of this argument that we should pay attention to whenever something similar comes up—"as a whole." Whenever the LSAT brings that phrase up, we need to analyze the net effect that a given change will have.

Here, the argument is trying to resolve the problem of high levels of pollution in a given country. The highest levels of pollution are associated with densely populated cities—they contribute to the most to the total pollution. To solve this problem, the argument recommends moving those people from the cities to the country.

However, it's not clear that this will lower net pollution. Sure, it might lower pollution in the cities, but then it's likely it'll raise pollution in the country. Spreading the problem around won't address the problem or lower the total.

We need to find an answer that tries to reduce the net/total amount of something by splitting it up into more pieces.

Answer Explanation:
This answer tries to have a certain effect on the net/total (number of calories consumed) by splitting up the same amount ("eating the remainder"). It also mirrors the move from populous cities (high-calorie meals) to rural areas (lower-calorie snacks). This answer commits the same flaw, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
It's hard to directly characterize this flaw. It looks at a whole and parts, but it's not exactly that flaw. It looks at solutions that aren't really partial, but they're not really complete, either. But that doesn't matter. Having those common errors in reasoning that we can spot is a tool to help us answer a question efficiently. But they're just a tool, and there are times when they're not the right one for the job. When you can't use them, rely on what you know to be relevant in questions from your work across the test and keep moving forward.

Incorrect. This answer takes a potential solution ("could be replaced") and treats it as if it would definitely work—flawed, but in a different manner.