PrepTest 20, Section 3, Question 2
The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases. In fact, the firm has a better than 90 percent acquittal rate in such cases. Dalton is an attorney whose primary specialization is in divorce cases, so Dalton certainly cannot be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates.
The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases. In fact, the firm has a better than 90 percent acquittal rate in such cases. Dalton is an attorney whose primary specialization is in divorce cases, so Dalton certainly cannot be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates.
The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases. In fact, the firm has a better than 90 percent acquittal rate in such cases. Dalton is an attorney whose primary specialization is in divorce cases, so Dalton certainly cannot be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates.
The law firm of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates is one of the most successful law firms whose primary specialization is in criminal defense cases. In fact, the firm has a better than 90 percent acquittal rate in such cases. Dalton is an attorney whose primary specialization is in divorce cases, so Dalton certainly cannot be a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
offers in support of its conclusion pieces of evidence that are mutually contradictory
overlooks the possibility that a person can practice law without being a member of a law firm
concludes that someone is not a member of a group on the grounds that that person does not have a characteristic that the group as a whole has
takes a high rate of success among the members of a group to indicate that the successes are evenly spread among the members
states a generalization based on a selection that is not representative of the group about which the generalization is supposed to hold true
Explanations
The passage concludes that Dalton, an attorney who primarily specializes in divorces cases, certainly can't become a member of Sutherlin, Pérez, and Associates.
Why? Well, because SP&A is a firm that specializes in criminal defense cases, with a remarkable track record in such cases.
I'm willing to grant (in fact, I must grant) that SP&A is a killer criminal defense firm. But does that mean they can't ever hire an attorney with other specializations? No. That's bogus.
It turns out to be a flaw question, so we need to find an answer choice that's present in this argument and that correctly articulates what the argument did wrong.
I want something like, "Overlooks the possibility that a person without a particular characteristic shared by a group cannot become a member of that group."
Let's take a look.
No, this isn't correct. The author doesn't offer pieces of evidence that contradict each other.
Nah, you might argue the author overlooks this by virtue of not discussing it in this argument, but this isn't even close to their error in reasoning.
Perfect. The author absolutely concludes that someone isn't a group member (a member of SP&A) because they don't share a particular characteristic (criminal defense specialization). This is the answer.
No, we can't even say this is present in the argument.
No, our author doesn't discuss sample sizes or data from which to generalize.
0 Comments