PrepTest 110

Incorrect. The conclusion here isn't about Alice's intent in asking her sister to lie, but about whether it is against the law. To be parallel, the conclusion would need to state that Alice intended to ask her sister to break the law.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Situation — Someone cleaned snow off of their car, which fell on the sidewalk and refroze, resulting in someone slipping and breaking her hip.

Conclusion — That person maliciously harmed the plaintiff
Argument — Malice = intention to cause harm. The plaintiff intended to clean his car, which resulted in the harm, even though he didn't know that the injury would result from the action.

Answer Anticipation:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions need us to find an answer that has the same flawed logic as the stimulus, so let's focus on the Lawyer's argument instead of the background description of the situation.

In that argument, the Lawyer defines a key term—"malice"—and then attempts to show that the Defendant's actions meet that definition. However they don't and it has to do with a key concept on the LSAT—motive. Malice requires intent to cause harm. What the Lawyer shows is that the Defendant intended to do the action that caused harm while admitting that there was no intent to harm—the harm was "unbeknownst" to the Defendant.

To form a general description of the flaw the Lawyer assumes that the outcome of an action determines the intent behind it even when there's evidence to the contrary. Let's find an answer where a similar flaw is committed.

Answer Explanation:
This answer commits the same flaw as the stimulus. Bruce intended to eat a pie much as the Defendant intended to clear the snow. Unbeknownst to Bruce the pie was poison—much as unbeknownst to the Defendant the clearing the snow from the car was going to result in injury. This argument then concludes Bruce intended to eat the poison (that he ate unknowingly) much as the stimulus concludes the Defendant intended to injure the Plaintiff (as malice is defined). Both the stimulus and this answer use premises establishing that someone intended to do something with an unknown outcome before concluding that they intended that unknown outcome.

Key Takeaway:
Motive and knowledge are important concepts on the LSAT! When they're brought up you should pay attention. Generally the LSAT will conflate motive action and outcome but all three could be different. You could act against your motives and the outcome of your actions could run counter to your motives.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), the conclusion here is about the reality of Cheryl's action, not the intent. To match the stimulus, the conclusion would have to say that Cheryl intended to denigrate her sister.

Incorrect. This answer has a Perception vs. Reality flaw. What is "generally thought" to be true is treated as being true—that Ms. Osgood is a spy. Additionally the conclusion isn't about Deon's intent to dine with an industrial spy so it can't run parallel to a flawed argument that has that as a key part of the flaw.

Incorrect. This is yet another answer where the conclusion doesn't mention intent, and so it can't commit the same flaw as in the stimulus that drew an unwarranted conclusion about someone's motives.