Preptest 69 - Section 1 - Question 14 ("forest fires")

sarkisp23

I had a hard time distinguishing the actual flawed reasoning here. I initially chose A because the logic matched perfectly, but changed my answer to E because E was more obviously flawed. My question is: when in doubt like this, is it best to just match the logic perfectly without worrying too much about identifying the flaw itself and just move on?

Here's JY's explanation: http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-69-section-1-question-14/

Pacifico

The goal is to match the flaw, not find the most flawed AC. AC A actually exemplifies this flaw much more explicitly than the stimulus does.

Just because you have no reason to believe that either of two candidates are likely to win an election independently does not mean that you haven't narrowed down the choices to just those two since they could be the only ones running.

Similarly, just because you haven't proven a fire was caused by campers or lightning doesn't mean you haven't ruled out all alternative causes, thus leaving those as the only two options.