LSAT Question Explanation
PT 105, Section 1, Question 26
Identify the FlawArgument structure
Marion will be late for work.
If Marion drives, she would have to leave 45 minutes early to get to work on time. But she also has to stop at the bank, which doesn't open early enough for her to leave 45 minutes early. The other option is she could take the train, but she doesn't like taking the train.
Explanation
The conclusion, that Marion can't get to work, is unsupported. It seems like she could take the train and get there on time.
The author confuses what Marion wants to do with what she can do.
Answer choices
The author never said only Marion is affected by the bridge closure. He just focuses on Marion because her commute and errand are what's relevant to the argument.
We don't really care if Marion knows about the bridge closure or has considered all the consequences of the closure (or the consequences of being late to work), we're just concerned with whether or not she can get to work on time. Which she can, by taking the train. This answer choice doesn't address this.
This indicates a "whole to part" flaw. This would be relevant if the author was saying "most people don't want to take the train, therefore Marion doesn't want to take the train." But that didn't happen, we were given as a premise that Marion doesn't like the train and then the author concluded that she can't get to work.
This works. We're given some evidence that Marion might drive, which is that she doesn't like the train. But then the author treats that as completely excluding the train as an option, leading them to make the flawed conclusion that Marion can't get to work on time.
In this case there's quite a good reason for Marion to take the train, so the author isn't committing the flaw in (E).