LR Drill Set 7, Question 7
Candidates running for office should pay close attention(42 more words not shown)
The principle underlying which one(13 more words not shown)
- ACosmetologists should pay(29 more words not shown)
- BResearch scientists should(36 more words not shown)
- CEmployees seeking promotions(48 more words not shown)
- DStudents trying to(48 more words not shown)
- EArtists seeking national(50 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Even a bad survey is supposed to teach the candidate something. A good one reveals the voters' views; a bad one reveals problems with the survey procedure. Either way, the author sees a benefit in paying attention.
I might question whether looking at results alone really reveals how the survey was flawed. But the question asks us to match the underlying principle, so focus on how the recommendation is supported. There are two alternatives, and each provides a different useful lesson. Because one or the other will apply, the author recommends examining the results.
What we’re looking for
My prediction is another recommendation to pay attention to something whether it is good or bad, with a useful but different payoff in each case. Merely listing two possibilities won't be enough. We need the link from both possibilities to the recommendation.
Working the answers
- A
This is close: positive and negative feedback can both help the cosmetologist improve. But it gives one shared benefit in either case, and says improvement is sometimes possible. The original specifically pairs good surveys with learning about voters and bad surveys with learning about the procedure. C reproduces that two-lesson structure more closely.
- B
This lists two possible sources of mixed results—faulty reasoning or a faulty assumption. It doesn't contrast a well-functioning source with a poorly functioning one and identify a useful lesson from each. The two alternatives are diagnoses of what went wrong, not the original's good-source/bad-source pair supporting attention either way.
- CCorrect
A helpful supervisor matches the well-constructed survey: listening teaches employees about the field they want to advance in, just as a good survey teaches candidates about the population they want to represent. An unhelpful supervisor matches the badly constructed survey: the comments reveal workplace difficulties, just as the bad survey reveals procedural flaws.
Both paths yield useful information, so both arguments recommend paying attention regardless of which kind of source you have. The answer mentions the unhelpful case first, but reversing the order of the alternatives doesn't change their roles.
- D
This describes what students generally do; it doesn't recommend what they should do. It also changes the people receiving the two outcomes: students who want to learn can persist, while students who don't want to learn can consider leaving. The original gives the same audience a useful lesson under either survey condition. D doesn't reproduce that recommendation and two-benefit pattern.
- E
The favorable branch can bring attention to the artist's work, but the other branch merely lets the artist shrug off a critic's misunderstanding. Dismissing an unhelpful comment isn't the distinct learning benefit the original extracts even from a badly constructed survey. The answer doesn't show that both kinds of criticism supply comparable reasons to pay close attention.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 1, Question 5Parallel Reasoning
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 10, Question 3Parallel Reasoning
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 12, Question 5Parallel Reasoning
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 13, Question 2Parallel Reasoning
- Logical Reasoning Drill Set 14, Question 12Parallel Reasoning
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.