PrepTest 102, Section 2, Question 22
It is an absurd idea that whatever artistic(31 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(14 more words not shown)
- AThe claim that(28 more words not shown)
- BThe claim that(29 more words not shown)
- CThe notion that(32 more words not shown)
- DThe notion that(29 more words not shown)
- EThe notion that(33 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Not paying for someone's poetry doesn't mean forbidding them to write it.
The speaker agrees. The idea being rejected is that any art the government refuses to support is also art it forbids. Under that idea, an artist could not say, “Fine, I'll pay for it myself.” Art without government funding would not be allowed at all.
Now the rephrasing makes sense: no one is allowed to create art without a government subsidy. It expresses the same restriction. Picture an artist who has permission to create something but no subsidy. Both versions of the criticized claim rule out that situation. The speaker presents that sweeping implication to show why the claim is absurd; the speaker is not endorsing the restriction.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, we need a claim followed by an accurate rephrasing of it, used to expose its absurdity. The wording can change considerably. What matters is whether the second version rules out the same possibility as the first. Don't settle for an answer that merely calls something absurd and then switches the relationship.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
“A driver who isn't arrested hasn't broken the law” rules out a lawbreaker escaping arrest. So does “Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.” The second version makes the implication easier to see: nobody gets away with breaking the law.
In the original, government funding is the requirement for permitted art. Here, arrest is the claimed requirement for having broken the law. The topics are very different, but each argument rejects a claim by accurately restating what it would require.
- B
The first sentence rules out lawbreakers who escape arrest. The rephrasing instead rules out innocent drivers who get arrested. Those are different possibilities.
Imagine one innocent driver is arrested while every actual lawbreaker is arrested too. The first claim could still be true—no lawbreaker escaped—but B's rephrasing would be false because an arrested driver was innocent. B changes the claim instead of clarifying it. The original keeps its claim's meaning intact.
- C
The first claim says a government grant guarantees success. The rephrasing says success requires a government grant. A scientist could succeed without a grant while every grant recipient also succeeds. That would fit the first claim but violate the second. C therefore changes what is required instead of expressing the same idea another way.
- D
This makes the same change as C in different words. “No scientist lacking support will succeed” excludes success without a grant. But saying every grant recipient succeeds doesn't exclude success for people without grants. The second sentence adds a restriction the first never supplied.
- E
Success and permission to do research are different things. The first claim predicts what happens to scientists who receive grants. The second says scientists aren't even allowed to conduct research without one. That new permission rule isn't an accurate rephrasing of the success claim, even though it echoes the original's wording about what is allowed.
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.