PrepTest 122

Incorrect. This answer is trying to get you to select it by sounding like a comparison flaw, but it brings it up incorrectly. The issue is that being gray and being suspected are dissimilar, not that that relationship and the rabbit/criminal relationship are different.

Incorrect. Another answer that does describe a comparison flaw, but the wrong one! The argument doesn't even relate being suspected and being a rabbit (You, sir, are a rabbit!" "I am not! How dare you!").

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Gray rabbit → Rabbit
Therefore — Suspected criminal → Criminal

Answer Anticipation:
This argument is interesting as it appears as if it's going to zig, but then it zags!

The premise includes a conditional rule ("all" introducing a conditional statement since it's a guarantee). From that, you should consider (and even expect!) a conditional logic flaw—an illegal reversal or negation.

However, the conclusion doesn't use the same conditional, or build from it in a flawed manner. Instead, it jumps to another conditional relationship. By jumping from one topic to another, the argument is drawing some type of comparison between the two situations, and thus it's potentially treating two things as similar that are not. In short, it could be a bad analogy.

So do gray rabbits have the same relationship to rabbits that suspected criminals do to criminals? They don't. "Gray" rabbits are a subset of rabbits, but they're still rabbits. "Suspected" criminals, by definition, aren't definitely criminals—they could be incorrectly suspected of a crime. Since these two situations are inherently different, treating one as establishing the other is flawed in drawing a bad analogy or a bad comparison, so the correct answer should reflect that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the flawed analogy from the stimulus. Gray rabbits are a subset of all rabbits, but suspected criminals are not a subset of criminals. While some suspected criminals are likely criminals, not all are—hence why they're only suspected of criminality.

Key Takeaway:
One skill to develop while studying for the LSAT (but also for life in general) is to start to associate certain features of arguments with certain flaws. Studies generally have sampling flaws; causal conclusions are often supported with correlations. However, just because that feature is present doesn't mean it's flawed—studies can have representative samples, and causal conclusions can be validly supported. That's why it's important to understand how to see if the flaw is present.

Here, we had two features that suggested certain flaws. Conditional logic suggests an illegal reversal or negation; the comparison between two situations suggested a bad comparison/analogy. Only the latter was present. That said, it's important that you think about both flaws while working through a question like this so you don't miss a flaw!

Incorrect. The argument doesn't state or assume that all rabbits are gray—that's an illegal reversal of the conditional statement.

Incorrect. This answer is close to a correct answer. If it stated that not all suspected criminals are criminals, then it would be right. But this answer is a reversal of the flaw in the argument, not the flaw itself.