PrepTest 125

Incorrect. Helen doesn't present gathered evidence for her claim, instead drawing an analogy. As such, Randi can't question how it was gathered.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
H: Reading is like investing money.

R: That only applies to some books; others are like watching TV.

Answer Anticipation:
Both Helen and Randi compare reading books to another activity—Helen to investing money, and Randi to watching TV. These arguments therefore both raise analogies, and so the correct answer will likely highlight that.

In responding to Helen's analogy, Randi starts by agreeing with it for a subset of books—vocational books are like investing money, as Helen says. However, Randi then goes on to bring up another subset of books—fiction—to state that it's not like investing money and instead is like watching a sitcom.

So Randi responds to Helen's argument by agreeing in part, but then raising an analogy to limit the scope of what Helen's analogy applies to.

Answer Explanation:
Helen's analogy applies to all books/reading. Randi brings up her analogy to limit the scope of Helen's analogy to "only" vocational books. This answer reflects Randi's response and is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
Arguments by analogy are common on the LSAT, as are arguments that rely on examples. Be sure to know the difference between them!
(1) An analogy presents a similar situation that's on the same level as the topic of the argument
(2) An example is a specific situation that falls under the category of the topic of the argument

Incorrect. This answer describes a repeated method of reasoning used on the LSAT—the reductio ad absurdum. In it, a rebuttal shows how using the original speaker's logic would lead to an absurd/unacceptable conclusion, and thus their logic must be wrong. Randi doesn't use Helen's argument against her—she presents a new analogy, not an absurd conclusion based on Helen's analogy.

Incorrect. Both Helen and Randi use analogies in their arguments; Helen doesn't use an example since her evidence is based on investing money, not a specific instance of reading.

Incorrect. Similar to (D), Helen doesn't present an example. Additionally, even if this answer were about an analogy rather than an example, Randi doesn't deny the relevance of it, just the scope of it. She starts by saying that Randi's analogy holds for vocational books!