Q7 - Dana intentionally watered the plant

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question. The flawed reasoning we're asked to match can be expressed in the following manner.

Someone intended to do something, and unbeknownst to them, that something had a consequence. Therefore that someone intended that consequence.

Answer choice (C) has that flawed pattern of reasoning. The restaurant owner intended to eliminate an item from the menu, which in turn had some unintended consequence. But the conclusion posits that the restaurant owner intended that consequence.

Incorrect Answers

(A) is a flawed argument and therefore may be tempting, but does not attribute intention to an unintended consequence.
(B) is a valid argument that connects to points of fact that lead to a valid inference.
(D) follows a valid chain of causal reasoning and is a valid argument.
(E) follows a chain of conditional reasoning and is a valid argument.


#officialexplanation

[jpchris3]

I understand why C works, but what specifically is wrong with answer choice A?

[chabela106]

I don't understand why C is better than E. Can you explain please?

[Mab6q]

I don't understand why C is better than E. Can you explain please?

E says:

The power plant --> raised the water temp --> responsible for the decrease in fish.

The power plant --> responsible for the decrease in fish.

Pretty simple. It's incorrect simply because there is no flaw.

[kyuya]

This question is made a lot easier if we break down the premises and conclusion into abstract language and search for a match.

Premise 1: Dana int. watered the plant (an act)
Premise 2: but.. was a succulent, needed dry soil so it died (a new condition regarding the thing the actor acted upon)

Conclusion: therefore, the actors intention can be inferred from the consequence of the initial act (the consequence in this case, being a reference to premise no.2)

The flaw here is that consequence of the act = the intent of the actor. This is of course not true; its possible that someone commits an acts for a variety of reasons but it has undesired consequences. Furthermore, its important to note that we are looking to duplicate the flaw found in the stimulus, we are not always looking for an argument that is a structural equivalent. For example, just because the stimulus is PREMISE, PREMISE, CONCL in this case, it does not necessarily mean on all parallel flaw questions the answer choice must fit the stimulus argument structure although it does happen to do so in this particular case.

Okay, so lets look for a match.

(A) The issue with this answer choice is that it does not (in the conclusion) infer the intent of the actor (Jack) and therefore is wrong.

(B) There is no act here. It is simply telling us something Celeste knows - but nothing she does. There is no inference regarding her intention from her action.

(C) This fits the argument in the stimulus perfectly.

- act (taking something off of the menu)
- consequence (disappoints Jerry)
- inferring the intention of the restaurant owner from an act (wanted to disappoint Jerry)

(D) There is no inference from an act about someones intention. It just tells us a sequence of events.

(E) Very similar to (D), there is again no inference from an act to an intention.