Q24 - Politician:the law should not require

[carefreeai36]

I was torn between (C)&(D). Isn't the issue changed from "the parks allow" to "legal" in (C)? And I think (D) may be a better choice.

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

This is a TOUGH nut to crack.

When we do Match the Flaw, we want to first understand the nature of the original flaw, as well as characterize the type of ingredients in the argument.

The original argument concluded
C: ppl shouldn't be legally required to wear seatbelts in cars

because
P: ppl aren't legally required to wear seatbelts on motorcycles
and
P: riding a motorcycle WITH a seatbelt is more dangerous than riding in a car WITHOUT a seatbelt

What's the flaw in that argument?
Well, anytime an author tries to prove that something is true about A because that something is true about B, we have the Analogy Flaw.

for example:
"Marathon runners don't run full marathons when they practice because it would harm their bodies to do so. Therefore, LSAT students shouldn't take full practice tests when they practice because it would harm their minds to do so"

When you argue by analogy, the strength of your argument rests on whether your analogy is "Fair to Compare"/"Relevantly Similar" to the original situation or whether there is some "Meaningful Difference" that makes comparing them dubious.

In the case of #24, we might say that motorcycles and cars are different enough that we can't assume that something applicable to motorcycles should automatically hold for cars as well. (In this particular case, it's probably true that wearing a seatbelt in a motorcycle wreck is actually MORE dangerous than not wearing a seatbelt. You're better off flying away from the wreck than being stuck to it)

Even without that unsavory image, though, I would analyze these choices looking for a dubious analogy. (That's the flaw)

We might create an abstract recipe of the argument's ingredients that sounds like this.

C: Doing X should be allowed in context A.
(because)
P: Doing X is allowed in context B.
and
P: Not doing X in context B is worse than doing X in context A.

When we look at answer choice (C), we can match up to those three ingredients:
C: Standing should be allowed on rollercoasters.
(because)
P: Standing is allowed on high cliffs
and
P: Not standing on a cliff is worse than standing on a rollercoaster

When we look at answer choice (D), we can't match up all three ingredients:
C: Smoking shouldn't be allowed in public places.
(because)
P: Polluting water shouldn't be allowed in public places
and
P: Smoking in private is worse than polluting in public.

There are really two analogies at play in choice D:
smoking vs. polluting water (doing X vs. doing Y)
and
public vs. private (context A vs. context B)

The original just had one action compared in two contexts:
Wearing seatbelts in a car
vs.
Wearing/Not wearing seatbelts on a motorcycle

Choice C has just one action compared in two contexts:
Standing on a rollercoaster
vs.
Standing/Not Standing on a high cliff's edge

Your concern about whether we can allow the meaning of "legal" to be equivalent to "allowed / not allowed" is admirable (because I can tell you're thinking critically about potential detail creeps) ... but the idea of legality is equivalent to "allowed / not allowed".

And, ultimately, the more important focus is on matching the parts of each answer choice with the parts of the original.

Let me know if you have lingering qualms.

[carefreeai36]

Thank you very much for your response! ï¼½Your explanation makes it much clearer to me now.

[ldagosti]

I was really confused as to why (B) would not work here?

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's see how (B) matches up with the model we made of the original argument:

C: Doing X should be allowed in context A.
(because)
P: Doing X is allowed in context B.
and
P: Not doing X in context B is worse than doing X in context A.

choice (B)
C: Taking time off should be allowed when under too much stress.
(because)
P: Taking time off is allowed with a bad cold
and
P: Not having a bad cold while stressed may be worse than not being stressed while having a bad cold.

It looks like it falls apart on that third ingredient.

Doing X = taking time off
context A = too much stress
context B = bad cold

The final ingredient basically says:
Context A without context B is worse than Context B without context A

But we wanted our final ingredient to be
P: Not doing X in context B is worse than doing X in context A.

Try to say to yourself what the last ingredient in (B) SHOULD have sounded like in order to be a match.

.
.
.
.

"Coming to work while having a bad cold is worse than taking time off while being under too much stress".

Hope this helps.