PrepTest 111, Section 3, Question 14
It is inaccurate to say that a diet(30 more words not shown)
The argument is most parallel,(10 more words not shown)
- AIt is inaccurate(28 more words not shown)
- BIt is accurate(33 more words not shown)
- CIt is correct(28 more words not shown)
- DIt is incorrect(34 more words not shown)
- EIt is inaccurate(24 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A cause can work through an intermediate step.
The argument gives us a possible chain: a diet high in refined sugar can make someone overweight, and being overweight can predispose that person to adult-onset diabetes. So the author rejects the claim that the diet cannot cause the disease. We can follow that reasoning using the relationships the passage gives us, without adding outside medical information.
The conclusion doesn't say the diet always causes diabetes or is its main cause. It says we can't rule out a causal contribution when the diet can bring about something that in turn increases the risk.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, look for the same three roles: a possible initial cause, an intermediate effect, and a further outcome. The argument should use those connections to reject a claim that the initial factor cannot cause the outcome. Match the meaning, not merely the presence of words like accurate or incorrect.
Working the answers
- A
This argues against saying cold air can cause a cold. Our argument argues against saying a factor cannot cause the outcome. A also gives a different proposed cause—viruses—and says they flourish in warm, crowded places. It doesn't build a chain from cold air through an intermediate step to catching a cold.
- B
This concludes that no airline flies between the two cities despite describing flights through a connecting city. Our argument uses an indirect connection as a reason to accept a possible causal link, not as a reason to deny a connection. B also describes a travel arrangement rather than the possible cause-and-effect chain we're matching.
- C
This is tempting because it connects fertilizer to rapid growth and rapid growth to poor disease resistance. But the conclusion calls overfertilization the primary cause of lawn disease. A possible chain doesn't establish that it is the main cause rather than one contributor among others. Our argument makes the more limited claim that the initial factor can cause the outcome. That's the meaningful difference, regardless of how the opening sentence is phrased.
- DCorrect
Inferior oil takes the place of the high-sugar diet. Valve deterioration takes the place of becoming overweight. Poorer mileage takes the place of diabetes. Each argument links the first factor to an intermediate effect, then links that effect to the final outcome.
D therefore rejects the claim that inferior oil cannot cause poorer mileage. It allows the indirect route without claiming every instance of inferior oil must produce the result or that oil is the main cause. Both the chain and the conclusion's limited strength match.
- E
This concerns who studied under whom. Alexander studied under Aristotle, who studied under Plato, but that doesn't make Alexander a student of Plato. E rejects the direct teacher-student relationship; it doesn't use a chain of possible causes to establish an indirect causal contribution. The shared three-person structure isn't enough.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.