LSAT Explanation PT 43, S2, Q24: Politician: The law should not require
LSAT Question Stem
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its flawed reasoning to the politician's argument?
Logical Reasoning Question Type
This is a Parallel question.
Correct Answer
The correct answer to this question is C.
LSAT Question Complete Explanation
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C).
The Politician's argument concludes that people should not be legally required to wear seat belts in cars because seat belts are not required in another situation (riding motorcycles) that is even more dangerous, even when seat belts are worn. The argument is flawed because it makes a comparison to a situation that is not similar enough to provide valid support for the conclusion. To find the correct answer choice, we need to find an argument that contains a similar flawed comparison and discusses comparative danger.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice does not contain a comparison between two dissimilar situations, so it is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The comparison in this answer choice is between illness and stress, which are similar enough to be valid, and there is no implied danger in the activities mentioned. Thus, this answer choice does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the Politician's argument.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The argument compares standing on a roller coaster to standing on the edge of a cliff, which is not a close enough comparison to be valid. Additionally, the argument discusses comparative danger, as sitting on the edge of a cliff (the implied appropriate way to ride a roller coaster) is more dangerous than standing on a roller coaster. This answer choice contains the same flawed reasoning as the Politician's argument.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice has several issues. First, the intent of the conclusion differs from the Politician's argument, as it concludes that something should be disallowed (smoking in a public place) rather than allowed (no seat belts). Second, the situation being discussed shifts from a public place to a private place. Third, the situation being compared (drinking water) is not found to be more harmful than the situation in the conclusion. Therefore, this answer choice does not parallel the flawed reasoning in the Politician's argument.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice does not contain a discussion of comparative danger, and therefore it cannot parallel the flawed reasoning in the Politician's argument.