LSAT Explanation PT 39, S4, Q26: Commentator: Because of teacher hiring freezes,

LSAT Question Stem

The flawed reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the commentator's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel Flaw question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is D. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

The question type for this problem is Parallel Flaw, which means we need to find an answer choice that contains a similar flawed reasoning to that in the commentator's argument.

First, let's break down and analyze the commentator's argument:

Premise: There are teacher hiring freezes.

Subconclusion/Premise: The quality of education in that country will not improve.

Conclusion: Thus, it will surely deteriorate.

The flaw in this argument lies in the jump from subconclusion to conclusion. Just because the quality of education will not improve doesn't necessarily mean it will deteriorate; it could remain the same. The commentator assumes there are only two possible outcomes (improvement or deterioration) when there are actually three (improvement, deterioration, or staying the same).

Now let's examine each answer choice and look for a similar flawed reasoning:

a) Raoul is a vegetarian, so he won't have pepperoni pizza. It follows that he will have the cheese pizza.

- This answer choice might seem similar, but it's not quite the same as the commentator's argument. There are many other options for pizza besides just pepperoni and cheese, so this answer choice doesn't have the same false dilemma.

b) Over 250 years of attempts to prove the Goldbach conjecture have failed, so it will probably never be proved. Hence, it is more likely to be disproved than proved.

- This answer choice can be eliminated because the conclusion uses "more likely" instead of a definite statement like "will surely."

c) Funding levels for social programs are being frozen, so our society will not become more harmonious. Thus, it may become more discordant.

- This answer choice can also be eliminated because the conclusion uses "may" instead of a definite statement like "will surely."

d) There is a storm moving in, so the outside temperature cannot rise this afternoon. Therefore, it must fall.

- This answer choice is correct. It has a similar flawed reasoning to the commentator's argument, assuming that there are only two possible outcomes for the temperature (rising or falling) when there are actually three (rising, falling, or staying the same).

e) The starter in Mary's car gave out weeks ago, so it is impossible for the car to start. Therefore, it will not start.

- This answer choice is incorrect because the conclusion is identical to the premise. The fact that it's impossible for the car to start is the same as saying it will not start.

So, the correct answer choice is (D), as it contains a similar flawed reasoning to that in the commentator's argument.