PrepTest 106

[lcid:3521] Prep Test 106 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

The report released by Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: E

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Flawed Parallel Reasoning Questions

Stimulus Summary

Interior ministry: The land reclamation program increased arable land by 19% Author: If true, it’s a success! Armand (Mathematician and brilliant): That can’t be true Author: The figures are wrong!

Answer Anticipation

As with all flaw-based questions, reading with an eye towards identifying elements that are related to common flaws can be helpful here! That said, there’s a lot going on in the argument, and when that happens, it’s generally good to start with the conclusion and work backwards to focus just on the relevant information. Here, the argument concludes that the figures cited in a report can’t be accurate. Why can’t they be accurate? Because Senator Armand said so, and she’s a brilliant mathematician. There are no other premises in support of this conclusion! Whenever an argument relies on the opinion of experts, there’s always the chance that it’s making an Inappropriate Appeal to Authority. This generally means that the authority it’s relying on hasn’t been shown to have the relevant expertise. And while Senator Armand might be good at math and just generally brilliant, that doesn’t mean that she is an expert on what findings for a land reclamation project are possible. If she pointed out that their calculations were wrong, then that would be one thing, but she seems to question the data itself. So this argument does have an Inappropriate Appeal to Authority, and we should head to the answer choices looking for an argument that has the same.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Albert's father claims that Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    This argument is flawed, but it doesn’t appeal to any authority. Rather, it assumes that Albert’s father knew what was in the garage toolbox.
  2. B
    Gloria's drama teacher claims Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The conclusion is based on Gloria’s own experience, something she can speak to, so there’s no inappropriate appeal here.
  3. C
    Amos claims that he Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    While this answer’s conclusion rests solely on the opinion of an expert, the expert is the appropriate expert to offer an opinion on the topic. A cardiopulmonary specialist (heart and lung specialist) can speak to how long someone could hold their breath, so there’s no flaw here.
  4. D
    Evelyn reports that she Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    This answer is a bit weird, but the argument actually commits an illegal reversal. It states that if Robert is right, Evelyn couldn’t have listened to the late news. It then uses the fact that she didn’t listen to the late news to conclude that Robert was right (and thus she was wrong), which uses the necessary condition to conclude the sufficient. That’s a different flaw than the stimulus, so this answer is incorrect.
  5. E
    Moira, after observing the Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E matches the stem
    This argument relies on Lomas’s opinion on who won a race, but it’s not shown that a bicycle engineering expert can speak to that - especially since it doesn’t introduce any evidence about the bikes they were riding. As such, this argument makes an Inappropriate Appeal to Authority, and it’s therefore the correct answer.

What this tests

Discussion

View all discussions Start a discussion