LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#36651
Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (A)

This political philosopher discusses fair taxation, saying that a just system would base each person’s
tax payments on the contribution that society has made to that person’s interest. In determining
taxation, the philosopher explains, the most objective way to determine how well an individual has
been served by society is one’s wealth. The philosopher concludes that income should therefore be
the only measure by which to determine how much a person gets taxed:
  • Premise: A just system would tax each person in proportion with the degree to which
    the person’s interests have been served by society.

    Premise: For tax purposes, the most objective measure of this is wealth.
    Conclusion: Thus people should be taxed solely based on wealth.
So, this philosopher has isolated the most objective measure of societal service to personal interest,
and decided to use it as the only measure by which to determine one’s level of taxation. The problem
with this argument is that there are many, many other ways to determine the degree to which one’s
personal interests have been served by society, and even the most objective way doesn’t necessary
stand alone as an accurate determinant.

The question stem asks for the answer choice that parallels this flawed logic, so the right answer
choice will likely have an argument that takes the best indicator and uses it as the only indicator.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Cars, says the author of this choice, should
be taxed more as their danger increases. The most reliable measure of danger is a car’s maximum
speed, so the author decides that a car’s ability to speed up should be the sole determinant of the rate
of taxation on that car:
  • Premise: The tax on cars should be in proportion to their danger.

    Premise: The best measure of this danger is a car’s ability to accelerate.

    Conclusion: A car’s acceleration should be the single determinant for a car’s taxation.
    Like the political philosopher quoted in the stimulus, this choice takes the most reliable measure
    (acceleration), then seeks to apply it as the only measure.
Answer choice (B): The flaw found here is different from the one in the stimulus. This choice begins
well: autonomy should be proportionate to maturity. As a gauge of maturity, however, this choice
suggests a test that was specifically designed for such measurement (this is a little different from the
stimulus and the correct answer choice). The conclusion provides that a certain score should earn
total autonomy—rather absolute, despite the fact that proportionality was mentioned at the beginning
of this answer choice.

Answer choice (C): This choice may have some appeal based on its topical similarity—like the
stimulus, this choice deals with taxes that are based solely on benefits received from the government.
Since big corporations receive large government subsidies, the author provides, they should pay a
proportionately greater amount than individuals. This answer does not reflect the flaw found in the
stimulus, because a single method of measurement is not applied as the only measure.

Answer choice (D): The logic in this choice is flawed, but not in the same way as the stimulus. This
one says that people who give large material benefit to society should receive high incomes. Since
people with higher incomes should be taxed at a higher rate, the author continues, activities that give
large material benefits to society should be taxed at a higher rate.
The problem with the logic here is that starts with a “should” and pretends it is so:
People who give the most to society should have high incomes—that doesn’t mean that they do, so
taxing such activities is not necessarily just.

Answer choice (E): This choice does deal with justice and proportionality, so it may look good at
first: medical care should be given in proportion to need, so the sickest people should get the highest
priority—this describes a triage system, but it would not guarantee proportionate distribution of
care. Since this is not the flaw found in the stimulus—that of using the best measure as the only
measure—this cannot be the correct answer choice.
 NeverMissing
  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: Feb 21, 2017
|
#33175
Hi PowerScore,

I want to make sure I understand fully why answer choice A is the correct answer. It's easy for me to see that answer choice A is the only answer choice that fully parallels the structure of the argument used in the stimulus; however, I initially hesitated to choose it because a car's speed and the ability to accelerate quickly are not synonymous terms, but they are being used interchangeably in the argument. Thus, it appeared to contain an additional flaw in addition to the flaw contained in the stimulus that I recognized (That flaw being that the premises do not advocate income being the SOLE metric for just taxation, merely one of the metrics).

However, as I revisited the stimulus, I came to the conclusion that "wealth" as noted in the second premises is not the same thing as "income" in the same way that "speed" is not the same thing as "quick acceleration." Was I correct in assuming that an additional flaw of the argument in the stimulus is that wealth and income are taken to be the same thing, when in fact they are not? For example, one could have inherited a vast sum of money but have no job, and therefore no income.

Lastly, when parallel flaw questions contain multiple flaws in the stimulus, must the correct answer choice also contain those multiple flaws? Could a correct answer choice only contain one of the flaws found in the stimulus and still be correct?

Thanks!
User avatar
 Jonathan Evans
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 726
  • Joined: Jun 09, 2016
|
#33210
Hi, NeverMissing,

Good questions. I'll start with your last question first: No, it is not necessary that the credited response to a Parallel the Flaw question parallel every flaw or nuance present in the stimulus. The question stem itself essentially speaks to this point in that you are looking for what is "most similar." With that in mind, however, it is quite likely that if there are multiple significant flaws in the stimulus, the credited response will match them.

With respect to this problem, the "shell game" faulty analogy you identified is the most significant flaw and the one I would endeavor to identify and match here. You did a good job matching the structure of the argument in the stimulus and matching this structure in the credited answer choice. Noticing the flaw involving "only" was very significant and a good prephrasing tool. However, be careful not to rely on structure in and of itself with Parallel the Flaw questions. As mentioned above, since you are looking for an answer with the most similar faulty reasoning, some credited responses can and do sometimes match the flaw precisely while not providing an exact match in structure. These difficult Parallel the Flaw questions sometimes offer an incorrect answer choice that appears far closer to the structure of the stimulus without providing a good match for the flaw.

Keep up the good work!
User avatar
 lsatlearner105
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: Aug 11, 2021
|
#89581
From what I've seen is that the main issue here is the concept shift that doesn't necessarily equivocate. In the stimulus, they shift from "wealth" being the most objective measure to we should tax based solely on "income." Wealth is how much you have while income is how much you make, so the conclusion would be flawed since the "most objective measure" isn't being applied in the author's conclusion and the flaw is a failure of the concepts equivocating.

(A) shares the same issue in that it goes from "speed" to then making a conclusion about needing to tax on "acceleration." Speed is how fast the car can go (ex: 100 mph) while acceleration is how quickly the can get to speed (think 0-60 mph). So hopefully that helps with how (A) shares the similar flawed reasoning in that "speed" and "acceleration" are two different concepts but are being argued by the author as being in one in the same.
 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8917
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#89586
Hi,

Thanks for the post! We have moved your post to the thread where this question is explained: viewtopic.php?f=510&t=13643

Let us know if you have any further questions! Thanks!

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.