PrepTest 106, Section 1, Question 13
People who say that Dooney County is flat(40 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the passage(11 more words not shown)
- AIf we paint(23 more words not shown)
- BPeople with children(17 more words not shown)
- CPeople who get(43 more words not shown)
- DIf I go(20 more words not shown)
- EPeople who have(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I'd want to check whether the report about Dooney County's terraces is accurate. But first, what is the author trying to do with it?
The reasoning starts with a proposed description of the land: flat. On flat land, water erosion isn't a problem, so farmers don't build terraces to prevent erosion. Then the author points to terraces in Dooney County and concludes that the proposed description must be wrong.
Put the steps into ordinary language: if things were a certain way, there would be no problem and no use of a particular remedy for that problem. Yet we see the remedy, so the author says things cannot be that way. The conclusion happens to come first, but another argument could put the same steps in a different order.
What we’re looking for
That's the pattern to carry into the parallel question. Look for a condition, the absence of a problem under that condition, an action meant to address that problem, and a conclusion drawn from observing the action. We should match what the author does, without assuming every step is sound.
Working the answers
- A
This predicts a drawback of painting white and recommends dark blue instead. It doesn't observe that someone has taken an action and use that observation to rule out a condition under which the action would have no purpose. A recommendation to choose a different color is not the structure of the claim about Dooney County.
- B
This contrasts who needs more space with who can afford a larger house. It doesn't use the presence of a remedy to infer that a condition is absent. There is no counterpart to finding terraces and concluding that the land cannot be flat.
- CCorrect
Getting a lot of exercise corresponds to having flat land. Trouble falling asleep corresponds to water erosion. Medication used to help someone sleep corresponds to terraces built to prevent erosion.
The author says people with the first condition don't have the problem, so they don't use that remedy for it. Jack takes medication, just as Dooney County has terraces, and the conclusion rules out the initial condition: Jack must not get much exercise; Dooney County must not be flat.
There is also a matching gap. Jack's medications might treat something other than sleep trouble. Likewise, terraces might have been built for something other than erosion prevention, such as appearance. Both arguments slide from an action for a particular purpose to the action in general. That is why the exact wording matters, not just the broad observation that both arguments mention something unnecessary.
- D
This predicts buying and eating snacks under a particular shopping condition, then makes a sweeping claim about inability to lose weight. It doesn't establish that the person must shop while hungry, and eating some snacks doesn't by itself establish that weight loss is impossible. More importantly for the match, there is no observed remedy used to reject a condition under which a problem wouldn't arise.
- E
This moves from a claim about people who have many friends to advice for someone who wants many friends. A tendency among people with many friends doesn't establish that everyone seeking friends must buy a car. The original doesn't recommend obtaining a tool to achieve a goal; it observes terraces and infers that the land lacks a particular feature.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.