PrepTest 107, Section 3, Question 16
Allowing more steel imports would depress domestic steel(29 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(14 more words not shown)
- ABuilding construction increases(27 more words not shown)
- BSince workers are(34 more words not shown)
- CIn countries that(37 more words not shown)
- DThe chief executive(35 more words not shown)
- EThe installation of(37 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
This conclusion follows from the policy we're given. Allowing more imported steel would hurt domestic steel manufacturers, and the government will not do anything that hurts that industry. Lifting the restrictions would do the very thing the government refuses to do.
We might disagree with that policy. Cheaper steel could benefit people who buy it, even while harming domestic producers. But the passage gives us the government's refusal as a fact. We don't have to decide whether protecting producers is wise to understand what follows from that refusal.
For the parallel question, keep three roles straight. The proposed action is allowing more steel imports. Its stated consequence is harm to the domestic steel industry. The decision maker is the government, which refuses actions with that consequence. So the government will refuse this particular action.
What we’re looking for
I want the same pattern elsewhere: an action would have a particular result; a group refuses to support anything with that result; therefore the group won't support the action. Merely mentioning an undesirable result won't be enough. We also need the rule that explains the refusal.
Working the answers
- A
Confidence in the economy is required for increased construction, but the argument treats confidence as enough to produce increased construction. People could be confident while some other obstacle prevents building. There is no stated policy of rejecting an action because of its result, and the conclusion does not follow in the way the steel conclusion does.
- B
This argues that an existing legal guarantee makes further regulations unnecessary. It does not establish that a proposed action causes a specified outcome and that the government refuses every action with that outcome. The mention of government policy is a topic resemblance, not a match in reasoning.
- C
This uses bankruptcies after airline deregulation to predict a similar outcome in other, financially weaker transportation industries. That is a comparison across industries. It does not give us a decision maker committed to avoiding the result and then conclude that the decision maker will reject deregulation. Its probable prediction also differs from the definite refusal in the original.
- D
The new tax is offered as a reason to predict that an executive probably won't accept stock. But the tax is imposed on the company, and there is no stated rule that the executive refuses every bonus that creates such a tax. The argument guesses how an incentive will affect a choice. The original derives a refusal from an explicit rule.
- ECorrect
Installing floodlights corresponds to allowing more steel imports. Making the telescope useless corresponds to harming the steel industry. The astronomy department corresponds to the government: each refuses proposals with the specified bad result.
Because floodlights would produce the result the department won't support, the department won't support installing them. Every role is preserved, including the definite consequence, the policy of refusal, and the resulting rejection of the particular proposal.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.