PrepTest 109

Incorrect. This answer deals with a well inspector triaging all wells in a town, not deciding whether or not to inspect a single one because it's possible that it will be . . . whatever the word is when you remove a well.

Incorrect. This answer is about the plumber doing the work, just making a call on how to do it. As such, it doesn't conclude that something can be avoided because an alternative solution "might" happen.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Background - The power company sends someone to cut branches that hang over power lines before storm season

Worker: This tree's owners might cut it down, so I don't have to trim the branches.

Answer Anticipation:
One important skill to develop on the LSAT is a shifting of what you focus on while reading. Content is important, but it's what we tend to focus on when we read in the real world. On the LSAT, logic is just as—if not more—important.

As such, we should be reading with a focus on logic words. Here, there's a big one in the premise—one that denotes the certainty of the statement. The power company worker's premise is that the owners of the tree said they "might" cut it down. That word establishes cutting down the tree as a possibility, not a certainty or even a probability.

However, the conclusion is certain—there "will be no need" to trim the overhanging branches. That's only true if the owners decide that they will cut down the tree, so let's find an answer that similarly jumps from a premise establishing something as possible to a conclusion that assumes it's a certainty.

Answer Explanation:
The mechanic here decides that he "will not" replace a vans' brakes because it's "tentatively scheduled" to be junked. In other words, the van might be junked, so there's no need to replace the brakes. That matches the same flawed logic as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Train yourself to shift your focus when reading. You should be hitting those certainty/strength keywords hard, highlighting them as you read to see if there's any jump in them between premise and conclusion.

Incorrect. This argument features a candidate making a determination on where best to focus her time and energy because of where her message will be best received—that doesn't jump from a possibility to a certainty.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of something that "might" solve a bigger problem here—the teacher is taking action to ensure that punishment is certain for the perpetrator.