Flawed Parallel ReasoningDiff: Medium
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: An editorial argues against helmet laws by pointing out that being a pedestrian or a drunk driver is way more dangerous, and since we don't stop people from doing those things, we shouldn't bother cyclists about helmets.
Conclusion: The people supporting a law to make bicyclists wear helmets are wrong.
Reasoning: Automobile-related pedestrian deaths and drunk driving deaths are much more frequent than bicycle deaths, yet we do not ban walking or alcohol.
Analysis: This argument is a classic example of a 'red herring' or 'relative privation' flaw. It suggests that because a larger problem exists and is unregulated, we should not regulate a smaller, unrelated problem. It also makes a 'false equivalence' by comparing a safety requirement (wearing a helmet) to a total ban (prohibiting walking or alcohol). To find the parallel, look for a choice that says 'We shouldn't do this small safety thing for X, because Y is much more dangerous and we don't stop people from doing Y.'
Conclusion: The people supporting a law to make bicyclists wear helmets are wrong.
Reasoning: Automobile-related pedestrian deaths and drunk driving deaths are much more frequent than bicycle deaths, yet we do not ban walking or alcohol.
Analysis: This argument is a classic example of a 'red herring' or 'relative privation' flaw. It suggests that because a larger problem exists and is unregulated, we should not regulate a smaller, unrelated problem. It also makes a 'false equivalence' by comparing a safety requirement (wearing a helmet) to a total ban (prohibiting walking or alcohol). To find the parallel, look for a choice that says 'We shouldn't do this small safety thing for X, because Y is much more dangerous and we don't stop people from doing Y.'
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage22.Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
Correct Answer
B
B matches the pattern: it rejects requiring goggles (a safety requirement) by noting that more people get sick from food poisoning and contagious diseases and that no one proposes banning eating or socializing (broad bans). This mirrors rejecting helmet requirements by pointing to greater harms without bans.
Upgrade Your Prep
Ready to go beyond free explanations?
LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.
Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal