PrepTest 137

Incorrect. This answer features a term shift from popularity in the premise to having policies that are best for the nation in the conclusion. The related "shift" in the stimulus is from the element of Blizzard to Blizzard as a whole, but this answer doesn't have the same part to whole relationship, as neither popularity nor policies are a part of the other.

Incorrect. This answer's conclusion is about what some people "believe," which is a distinct concept from what people "know." (The LSAT treats the latter as being a believed fact, whereas a belief might be false.)

Incorrect. This answer's conclusion is about what some people "believe," which is a distinct concept from what people "know." (The LSAT treats the latter as being a believed fact, whereas a belief might be false.)

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
5/5 dentists agree - Blizzard's tartar control formula is the most effective at fighting cavities available. So dentists know Blizzard is best for fighting cavities.

Answer Anticipation:
There are three elements in this argument that suggest common flaws.

First, a survey was done. Whenever there's a survey, we should always consider a sampling flaw. Here, 5 dentists isn't nearly a large enough sample size to draw a conclusion about the "dental profession" as a whole without establishing that these 5 speak for that profession, so that flaw is present.

Second, there's a premise about an element of Blizzard (the tartar control formula), but the conclusion is about Blizzard as a whole. It's possible that Blizzard has a great tartar control formula, but then the rest of it is pure caramel. That's probably not going to be great for the teeth! This argument jumps from what is true of a part of the toothpaste to what is true of the toothpaste as a whole, so there's a part to whole flaw.

Third and finally, we have a conclusion about what the dental profession "knows." Whenever an argument discusses what a group thinks/believes/knows, we need to make sure that it establishes the relevant details—and there's very little that can establish what a group knows other than a premise directly stating it. Even if dentists accept that Blizzard has the most effective cavity-fighting formula, they may not "know" that it's the best at fighting cavities—they may not know anything about Blizzard other than it includes this formula.

So we've got a lot of fodder to work with here! We need an answer that bases its conclusion on a sample that's too small, jumping from a premise about a part of something to a conclusion about the whole, and concluding that some entity "knows" something because they accept a related fact.

Answer Explanation:
Too-small sample? Ten, check. Jump from a part (policies) to a whole (the candidate as a whole)? Check. Conclusion about what the larger group "knows"? Check. This is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Some Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions feature multiple flaws, though it's rare to have 3 (most have 1, some have 2, rarely there are more). When you spot more than one, you can use it to help you find the correct answer, as that answer will need to have all the flaws of the stimulus.

Incorrect. The premise here directly addresses the conclusion—whether electing Gomez is a good idea—so there's no part to whole jump.