PrepTest 106, Section 2, Question 15
Rhonda will see the movie tomorrow afternoon only(41 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning displayed(11 more words not shown)
- AIf Janice comes(31 more words not shown)
- BGary will do(35 more words not shown)
- CKelly will barbecue(35 more words not shown)
- DLisa will attend(31 more words not shown)
- EGeorge will not(39 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Ted refuses to go, so Paul's condition isn't met. Paul will not attend without Ted's agreement. And Rhonda will see the movie only if Paul goes. With Paul not going, Rhonda's condition isn't met either. The conclusion follows.
Keep track of what the conditions do. Paul's attendance is required for Rhonda's movie trip; it doesn't guarantee that trip. She could still choose not to see the movie even if he went. Likewise, Ted's agreement is required for Paul to go, but an agreement alone wouldn't force Paul to attend.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, we need two linked requirements and the failure of the last one. Ted's refusal stops Paul, and Paul's absence stops Rhonda. Look for that same chain of something failing to happen because a required step farther along the chain fails.
Working the answers
- A
Finding a babysitter is required for Janice to visit. She finds one, and the argument concludes that she will visit. But she could meet that requirement and still decide not to come.
That is different from the original, which rules an event out because a requirement fails. A treats meeting a requirement as a guarantee. Its first statement about Mary's bills also isn't used to carry the conclusion through the whole chain; the conclusion stops at Janice's visit.
- BCorrect
Gary's laundry corresponds to Rhonda's movie. Peter having to work corresponds to Paul attending the concert. Cathy's being ill corresponds to Ted agreeing to go.
Gary does the laundry only if Peter has to work. Peter will not have to work unless Cathy is ill. But Cathy is not ill, so Peter will not have to work. Without Peter having to work, Gary's requirement for doing the laundry fails. Therefore Gary will not do it.
Both arguments start with the failure of the final requirement and trace its effect back through the middle event to rule out the first event. That's the full structure we need.
- C
No rain together with fresh trout gives one situation in which Kelly will barbecue fish. The market lacks fresh trout, but that doesn't prove Kelly won't barbecue any fish. Kelly might use a different fish or have another reason to cook.
The original tells us what must happen for the first event to occur. C instead gives a combination that would produce an event and assumes the event cannot happen without that combination. Its two conditions also sit side by side, rather than forming the original's linked requirements.
- D
Having at least one brother attend is a requirement for Lisa to attend. Jared's attendance meets that requirement, but it doesn't make Lisa's attendance certain. She could stay home for another reason. As in A, the argument treats satisfying a requirement as enough to guarantee the result, instead of using a failed requirement to rule the result out.
- E
Postponing most appointments is required for Mark to go, but postponing some appointments doesn't establish that most were postponed. And even meeting the requirement would not guarantee that Mark goes.
The conclusion also concerns Mark, the middle person, rather than tracing a failed requirement back to George's museum trip. To resemble the original, we would need a failed final requirement that prevents the middle event and consequently prevents the first. This answer supplies neither that failure nor that completed chain.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.