PrepTest 133

Incorrect. The premise here contains a relative term ("more salt"), so it doesn't have the same Absolute vs. Relative flaw as the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
High-fat food tends to be unhealthy
Brownies - Fat-free
Cookies - High fat
Conclusion - The brownies are healthier than the cookies

Answer Anticipation:
When trying to find a flaw in an argument, we should identify elements that tend to lead to specific flaws. Here, there's a comparative conclusion, so we should check to see if the premises support that comparison.

The specific comparison here is that the brownies are healthier than the cookies. A comparison requires that the criteria to make a determination is established, and that criteria is discussed and compared between the things being compared.

So do the premises establish the criteria to determine whether something is healthier than something else? Nope—and be careful! The relevant premise here discusses the connection between food high in fat and healthiness. However, it's an absolute term, not a relative one—food high in fat tends to be unhealthy, not unhealthier than food with less fat. So while the high level of fat in cookies may suggest that they're unhealthy, the lack of fat in brownies doesn't allow us to infer that they're healthy or even more likely to be healthy.

Since the argument jumps from an absolute premise ("unhealthy") to a relative conclusion ("healthier"), this argument commits an Absolute vs. Relative flaw, and the correct answer will need to do the same.

Answer Explanation:
The argument in this answer goes from an absolute premise ("few vitamins") to a conclusion that's relative ("fewer vitamins"), so it commits the same flaw as the stimulus. This is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Comparative language/logic is one of the most common things tested on the LSAT, so always be on the lookout for it. When an argument jumps between relative and absolute language, it's likely flawed for that reason. After all, even a shorter basketball player probably isn't short.

Incorrect. The conclusion here isn't relative/a comparison, so this answer choice isn't parallel.

Incorrect. While the conclusion is comparative here, likelihood is a bit of a different type of comparison than what's healthier, so we can eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. The opening premise here is comparative, not absolute, so it's not parallel to the argument in the stimulus.