PrepTest 105, Section 2, Question 19
No one in the French department to which(51 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning displayed(17 more words not shown)
- AThe Morrison Building(33 more words not shown)
- BThe revised tax(45 more words not shown)
- CAll property on(32 more words not shown)
- DNew buildings that(48 more words not shown)
- ESince according to(38 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We have two separate reasons Professor Alban won't teach two introductory French classes next term. The department permits at most one. And next term, the language offerings will all be advanced anyway.
Either reason is enough to support the conclusion. Under the first restriction, two introductory classes are too many. Under the second, there won't be even one introductory language class to teach. The argument doesn't need to combine two incomplete pieces to get there; it reaches the same result by two routes.
What we’re looking for
That's what we should carry into this parallel question. Look for a particular case covered by two rules, either of which independently establishes the conclusion. Merely including two statements before a conclusion won't be enough.
Working the answers
- A
Occupancy by May triggers the new tax rates, and Morrison will be occupied by May. So the rule applies to Morrison. That works, but it is one route to the conclusion: a rule plus a fact showing that the building meets it.
The fact of occupancy is not a second, independent reason for the tax treatment. Without the tax rule, occupancy alone tells us nothing about the applicable rates. In the original, either restriction independently rules out the proposed teaching schedule.
- B
This can look close because it mentions two rules. But ask which ones actually apply to Norton. Its 1873 construction date puts it under the rule for buildings built before 1900. That alone establishes that the code doesn't apply.
The rule for buildings built between 1900 and 1920 says nothing about this 1873 building. It therefore supplies no second route to the conclusion. We don't reject B because both rules concern the same tax code; we reject it because only one covers the building being discussed.
- C
Reassessment doesn't guarantee a tax increase. A property's assessed value could fall, for example, leaving it with a lower bill. So this argument fails to establish its conclusion, while the original supports its conclusion twice. It also supplies no pair of independent reasons for higher taxes.
- DCorrect
The new building has public space, so the two-year exemption rules out city taxes next year. Separately, it is a new building in Alton, so the five-year exemption also rules out city taxes next year.
Public-space status and Alton location play the roles of the two restrictions on Alban's schedule. This particular building meets both conditions, and either exemption alone is enough for the same conclusion. Just as Alban is covered by both restrictions, the building is covered by both exemptions.
- E
These rules form a chain: hospitals are exempt from property taxes, and buildings exempt from those taxes receive a special water rate. Together, the rules establish the hospital's special rate.
But neither rule alone does that job. Knowing that hospitals are tax-exempt wouldn't tell us their water rate without the other rule. Knowing the water-rate rule wouldn't establish that this hospital qualifies without the tax exemption. The original gives two independent routes, not two steps that must be joined.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.