LR Drill Set 10, Question 3
The chief biologist at the Coastal Aquarium has(32 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AA geologist has(42 more words not shown)
- BA geologist has(36 more words not shown)
- CA geologist has(34 more words not shown)
- DA geologist has(34 more words not shown)
- EA geologist has(44 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If all the scyphozoans are at the west end, the jellyfish have to be there too. Jellyfish belong to that larger category. They can't be tucked away at the east end while every member of their category is at the west end. That reasoning makes sense if the chief biologist's report is accurate. The word 'probably' fits reliance on that report; we don't need to invent a problem with the category relationship itself.
For the parallel, keep track of three roles. An expert puts an entire category in one location. A second fact places a narrower category inside that category. The conclusion rules the narrower category out of the other location.
What we’re looking for
That is enough to start testing the choices. For each one, identify the larger group, the group inside it, and the two locations. Then check whether the answer uses those facts in the same order to make the same kind of exclusion.
Working the answers
- A
The first sentence matches: an expert places all the country's gemstones at the northern mine. But then A says all those gemstones are rubies. The original instead puts all jellyfish inside the scyphozoan category. We would need all rubies to be gemstones.
The conclusion also says the southern mine produces nothing but rubies rather than saying no rubies come from it. Both the category relationship and the exclusion at the second location fail to match.
- BCorrect
The geologist corresponds to the biologist; gemstones correspond to scyphozoans; rubies correspond to jellyfish. The northern Templeton mine is the west end, and the southern Macdonald mine is the east end.
All the country's gemstones come from the northern mine, and all rubies are gemstones. So the rubies in that country cannot come from the southern mine, just as the aquarium's jellyfish cannot be at the east end. The expert report, category inclusion, and second-location exclusion all line up.
- C
This begins by describing the gemstones from one mine: all of those are rubies. It doesn't place all of the country's gemstones at that mine. The southern mine could also produce rubies, so nothing here matches the original report that confines the whole larger category to one location.
- D
This can validly rule rubies out of Templeton: no gemstones come from there, and rubies are gemstones. But it begins with a direct exclusion from one location and carries that exclusion to a smaller category. The original begins by putting the whole category in one location, then excludes the smaller category from another. The reasoning is related but the pattern is different.
- E
This puts all rubies at Templeton from the outset, then says some gemstones come from Macdonald. It can rule rubies out of Macdonald, but it doesn't use the original's two-step category chain: locate all members of the larger category, then establish that the smaller category belongs inside it. A sound conclusion alone doesn't make the structure the closest match.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.