LR Drill Set 14, Question 12
Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(14 more words not shown)
- AAccording to company(36 more words not shown)
- BAny employee of(37 more words not shown)
- CAnyone promoted to(38 more words not shown)
- DTo earn a(37 more words not shown)
- EAnyone who is(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The university censured Edwards, so one of the two stated explanations has to apply. Which one survives?
A censured professor must have revealed embarrassing information or committed gross professional negligence. Edwards' professional behavior is impeccable, so negligence is ruled out. That leaves revealing embarrassing information. The argument works because it gives us the event, limits the possibilities, and eliminates one of them. We aren't merely guessing which explanation sounds likely.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, keep those roles straight: a person has a certain outcome; having that outcome requires one of two alternatives; one alternative is ruled out; therefore, the other applies. The answer can discuss a very different subject or put its conclusion in a different place. What matters is whether it makes the same supported move.
Working the answers
- A
This also has two possibilities, but it gives a different rule. Frequent absence or habitual lateness leads to a warning. Jensen has no warning, so she cannot be habitually late under that policy. That reasoning works, but it isn't our pattern. Edwards did receive the relevant outcome, and we use that known outcome to require one of two explanations. Jensen did not receive a warning, and that absence rules out a behavior that would have produced it.
- B
Discussing a client with the press would lead to firing or demotion. But the fact that employees never discuss clients doesn't show they can never be demoted. Some other conduct could produce a demotion. The original has an actual censured professor and an exhaustive pair of possible explanations for the censure. B instead rules out one trigger and assumes an outcome can never occur.
- CCorrect
The promotion matches Edwards' censure: we know it happened. The rule requires a promoted person to have either three years on the shop floor or an influential sponsor. Those are the two alternatives, matching embarrassing disclosure or negligence. Daniels has only one year, so the three-year option is unavailable. That leaves the sponsor, just as excluding negligence leaves embarrassing disclosure for Edwards. The roles match even though this conclusion appears later than the original conclusion.
- D
The rule begins promisingly: getting a merit raise requires either bringing in clients or developing innovative products. No innovative products rules out one alternative. But did anyone get the raise? We aren't told. Without that event, there is no reason anyone had to meet either requirement. Compare Edwards, whose censure is explicitly given. D skips that fact and also jumps to “many” new clients.
- E
A letter and a bonus each require an officer's recommendation. Simon has the recommendation and will get a bonus, but he could get a letter too. Nothing makes the two awards incompatible. The original eliminates one alternative using an independent fact about Edwards' conduct; it doesn't infer that one alternative is absent merely because the other is present. E also puts the pair of alternatives before the recommendation requirement, unlike the rule that censure requires one of two explanations.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.