LR Drill Set 8, Question 2
For shepherds, using llamas for guarding sheep is(79 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(14 more words not shown)
- AIt is cheaper(25 more words not shown)
- BAn energy-efficient refrigerator(20 more words not shown)
- CEmployers are well-advised(23 more words not shown)
- DThe new air-conditioning(25 more words not shown)
- EBuying laundry detergent(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The llama costs more to buy. That doesn't mean it costs more to keep.
At first, the claim that llamas are cheaper seems odd: purchasing one can cost $300 more than purchasing a suitable dog. But the argument immediately gives us the costs that the purchase price leaves out. Dogs need a year of training, many die young, and feeding them is expensive. Llamas need only a few days of training, live longer on average, and graze where the sheep already do.
So the extra money at the start can pay for itself over time. Buying the cheaper animal may mean spending more on its training, food, and replacement. Think of buying something durable so you don't have to keep buying another one.
We might also ask whether a llama guards sheep as well as a dog. That's a fair practical question, but this particular argument concludes that llamas cost less overall. It doesn't need us to establish that they are better guards.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the reasoning that is least similar. Four choices should have the same basic payoff: accept a higher initial cost because a later financial benefit makes up for it. We're looking for the one that recommends its option for a different kind of reason.
Working the answers
- A
The expensive watch takes the llama's place, and the cheap watch takes the dog's place. Paying more now buys a longer useful life, which makes the expensive option cheaper over time. That closely matches the argument's point about llamas living longer, so A is not the exception.
- B
Here the efficient refrigerator is the llama. Its higher purchase price is offset by lower running costs. Energy savings serve the same role as the llama's lower feeding costs: an expense that keeps adding up after the initial purchase. This follows the same reasoning.
- C
This is slightly less literal than A or B because the eventual benefit is increased productivity rather than a directly stated reduction in expenses. Still, the important financial relationship is there. Hiring experienced workers costs more up front, but their additional output more than offsets that cost. The employer gets a later financial payoff that outweighs the initial expense, much as the shepherd does. We don't have to pretend the recruitment bill itself becomes smaller for C to fit.
- DCorrect
The harder-to-produce option is recommended because it is safer for the environment. That may be an excellent reason to choose it, but it doesn't say that the initial difficulty or expense is recovered through later savings. In the original, the apparently expensive option turns out to have a financial advantage overall. Here, a different benefit justifies the choice even without an overall financial advantage. That is the clearest departure.
- E
The large purchase requires more money at once, just as buying the llama does. But each wash costs less, so the total cost over time is lower. We don't need the detergent to last longer because it is more durable; the relevant match is the higher initial outlay paying off through a lower long-term cost.
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.