Flawed Parallel ReasoningDiff: Medium
Logic Breakdown
Passage Summary: A politician thinks seat belt laws for cars are silly because motorcycles are more dangerous and don't have those rules, so why bother with the safer option?
Conclusion: Car passengers should not be legally mandated to wear seat belts.
Reasoning: Since motorcycle riding is inherently riskier than car travel and lacks seat belt requirements, it is inconsistent or unnecessary to require them for the safer activity.
Analysis: The politician's logic is a classic 'whataboutism' or a failure to recognize that safety regulations for one activity don't depend on the risks of a completely different activity. Just because one thing is 'less dangerous' than another doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the safer thing even safer. When looking for a parallel flaw, seek out an argument that says 'We shouldn't regulate X because Y is even worse and we don't regulate that.' It is like saying we shouldn't have a 'no running' rule at a pool because skydiving is more dangerous and has no such rule.
Conclusion: Car passengers should not be legally mandated to wear seat belts.
Reasoning: Since motorcycle riding is inherently riskier than car travel and lacks seat belt requirements, it is inconsistent or unnecessary to require them for the safer activity.
Analysis: The politician's logic is a classic 'whataboutism' or a failure to recognize that safety regulations for one activity don't depend on the risks of a completely different activity. Just because one thing is 'less dangerous' than another doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make the safer thing even safer. When looking for a parallel flaw, seek out an argument that says 'We shouldn't regulate X because Y is even worse and we don't regulate that.' It is like saying we shouldn't have a 'no running' rule at a pool because skydiving is more dangerous and has no such rule.
Passage Stimulus
Passage Redacted
Unlock Full Passage24.Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its flawed reasoning to the politician's argument?
Correct Answer
C
C matches the pattern: since standing at the edge of high cliffs is legal and even sitting there is more likely to cause a fatal fall than standing on a roller coaster, the argument concludes the amusement park should allow standing on roller coasters. It uses a permitted riskier comparison to argue for allowing the less risky practice.
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