PrepTest 118

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Almost all 9-year-olds can ID cigarette logos, but almost none of them smoke. So recognizing cigarette logos and smoking aren't connected.

Answer Anticipation:
Maybe—just maybe—9-year-olds aren't the right group to look at when considering if something is causing smoking. They're not of an age where they can buy cigarettes (or even likely convince a cashier that they're old enough even with a fake ID). It's possible that these 9-year-olds that can recognize cigarette brands will grow up to be smokers, and that almost everyone who is a smoker who isn't 9 can recognize those brands, as well. The correct answer should similarly have this issue with determining that a certain connection doesn't exist because it doesn't look at a long enough timeline—it doesn't consider if those 9 year olds grow up to become smokers.

Answer Explanation:
This argument commits a similar flaw to the one in the stimulus in that it doesn't look at a long enough timeline to determine if a relationship exists. While the dolphins may not have shown any adverse effects of being exposed to mercury after 3 months, it's possible that they could start to show issues over a longer time period. Without monitoring those dolphins over a longer period, the conclusion that mercury doesn't hurt dolphins is unfounded, just like the argument that cigarette logo recognition doesn't eventually result in those 9-year-olds growing up to be smokers.

Key Takeaway:
Timelines are always important on the LSAT, but they're particularly important in questions that are dealing with relationships and causality. The cause always has to happen before the effect, and the effect should be seen on a timeline that makes sense. That may mean a short timeline if the cause directly and immediately leads to the effect; it can also mean a longer timeline if the cause can't be expected to lead to the effect until much later, as we saw here.

Incorrect. This argument concludes that a certain relationship does exist—that parents discouraging a career will result in children not pursuing it. That's much different from a stimulus where a relationship is concluded to not exist.

Incorrect. The conclusion here compares the efficiency of two causes that both lead to the same effect, which is very different from an argument concluding that a certain relationship doesn't exist.

Incorrect. Very close! However, the answer choice here is very specifically about there not being a correlation, and the conclusion in the stimulus was about there not being a relationship at all. Second, this argument shifts from discussing longevity to good health, a term shift that isn't mirrored in the stimulus.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is that something doesn't matter, not that two things aren't related, so it can't commit the same flaw.