PrepTest 110, Section 3, Question 25
Jordan: If a business invests the money necessary(41 more words not shown)
In which one of the(21 more words not shown)
- AJordan: Either it(44 more words not shown)
- BJordan: Each person(31 more words not shown)
- CJordan: If taxes(46 more words not shown)
- DJordan: If we(50 more words not shown)
- EJordan: If the(48 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Jordan makes both choices sound bad. Spend the money on environmentally responsible practices, and the business loses market share. Don't adopt the practices, and it pollutes and wastes resources.
Terry proposes a way around the first bad result. If consumers demand responsible practices from all businesses, one business won't be placed at a special disadvantage for adopting them. The response doesn't make the investment cost disappear. It challenges the claim that investing has to put this particular business behind its competitors.
What we’re looking for
For a parallel exchange, I'd initially look for that kind of response: someone presents two unattractive options, and the other person identifies a way to avoid one of the bad consequences. Since Terry gets around the problem through coordinated action, my first thought is to look for a response that uses cooperation to escape a bad outcome.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Rain ruins the picnic; no rain leaves the garden without needed water. Those are Jordan's two bad outcomes. Terry supplies a way to avoid the second one: if it doesn't rain, use a hose. Now a dry day needn't mean a dry garden.
That matches the response in the original exchange. A business can adopt the practices without the predicted special disadvantage if all businesses face the same demand. Here, we can have no rain without the predicted lack of watering if we use the hose. The solution doesn't involve coordinated businesses, but it does the same work: it breaks the claimed link between one option and its bad consequence.
- B
Jordan says enjoyment and a long life are incompatible. Terry responds with happy, health-conscious people who challenge that claim. This is an appeal to apparent counterexamples, rather than a proposal for how to avoid one bad consequence of a choice. There is an either-or claim here; the different form of Terry's response is what matters.
- C
Terry introduces a third option: leave taxes where they are instead of raising or lowering them. In the original, implementing the practices and not implementing them already cover the available possibilities. Terry changes what would happen under one option, rather than adding an option outside the pair.
- D
Jordan describes two considerations about remodeling: it increases the home's value, but it doesn't guarantee a higher sale price. Terry then describes a possible downside of not remodeling. The response doesn't offer a practical way to avoid either of two bad outcomes Jordan presented. It adds a concern about the alternative.
- E
Terry denies that the dam is in real danger of bursting, then recommends opening the spillway if more heavy rain comes. That isn't a proposal for how to prevent an acknowledged danger while taking one of Jordan's options. Compare the hose in A: it supplies a way to water the garden, rather than merely denying that the garden needs water.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.