PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 24
Only if a family manages its finances wisely(44 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(15 more words not shown)
- AWithout continued use(57 more words not shown)
- BReasonably healthy people(58 more words not shown)
- CMany popular, low-maintenance(51 more words not shown)
- DOnly employees who(56 more words not shown)
- EA successful charity(49 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Don't turn the budget into wise money management. Those are two different things in these sentences.
The first rule says a family needs wise financial management to obtain fiscal security. It doesn't promise that wise management guarantees security. A family could manage its money carefully and still have too little income to become financially secure. We're being given a requirement, not a complete recipe for success.
The second rule introduces a different result: a functional budget. To devise one, the family needs realistic projections of its financial obligations. That doesn't connect the budget to the first rule. It gives us a second result with its own requirement.
Now read the conclusion one possibility at a time. If the family obtains fiscal security, it must have managed its finances wisely. If it devises a workable budget, it must have projected its obligations realistically. Either result therefore brings along at least one of those requirements. Nothing has been turned around, and the conclusion doesn't say either requirement can produce either result. The reasoning works.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, keep two separate pairs: security needs wise management; a budget needs realistic projections. We want another argument with two different results, a requirement for each, and a conclusion saying that achieving either result requires meeting at least one corresponding requirement.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Growing enough food plays the role of obtaining fiscal security. Continued pesticide use plays the role of wise financial management: the first is said to require the second.
Reducing persistent health problems plays the role of devising a workable budget. Developing pesticides harmless to humans plays the role of realistic financial projections: again, the desired result requires the stated condition.
The conclusion then combines those pairs. If enough food is produced or health problems are reduced, pesticide use must continue or harmless pesticides must be developed. Its wording puts the requirements before the word “if,” but the direction is unchanged. Either result brings its corresponding requirement, exactly as in the original.
- B
The conclusion concerns someone who wants both to lose weight and to avoid health risks. Our original conclusion starts from either of two results and carries forward the corresponding requirements. B instead recommends one action, medical supervision, for someone pursuing a combined goal. Also, its supervision premise concerns drastic changes, while its conclusion expands to beginning a diet or exercise program generally.
- C
The opening statement says plants are available; it doesn't establish the first of two result-and-requirement pairs. The rest discusses toxic plants around pets and recommends precautions. Offering two precautions in the conclusion doesn't recreate the original's structure. We need both starting rules, not just an “either/or” somewhere in the answer.
- D
Both rules concern keeping employees at the company: diligence is required, and fitting the new structure is required. The conclusion accordingly asks the employee to meet both requirements. The original gives requirements for two different results, financial security and a budget, and then discusses achieving either result. D combines requirements around one employment goal.
- E
The planning, volunteers, equipment and facilities all concern the same result: a successful charity drive. We never get a separate result paired with its own requirement. The final choice between planning ahead and expecting failure doesn't supply that missing second pair. This is another argument about requirements for one outcome.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.