PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 9
Manuscripts written by first-time authors generally do not(34 more words not shown)
The structure of which one(14 more words not shown)
- AChallengers generally do(24 more words not shown)
- BFruit salad that(37 more words not shown)
- CThursday's city council(32 more words not shown)
- DThe bulk of(38 more words not shown)
- ENormally about 40(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The author says 'unlikely,' not 'impossible.' That makes the conclusion fit the kind of rule we're given.
First-time authors generally don't get serious attention, with celebrities identified as an exception. This author is writing a first manuscript and isn't a celebrity. Expecting the usual result is reasonable. We would have a problem if the conclusion turned that general tendency into a guarantee, but it doesn't.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, keep the pieces together: a particular kind of case usually gets a result; an exception is identified; our case belongs to that kind and lacks the exception; so the usual result is likely. We need to match those relationships, not just find another argument containing the word 'unless.'
Working the answers
- A
The exception is present here: the incumbent has become very unpopular. In the original, the author is not a celebrity, so the exception is absent. A then says the challenger may win, instead of using the absence of the exception to predict the usual unfavorable result. Similar opening rules don't make the later reasoning match.
- BCorrect
Fruit salad containing bananas corresponds to a manuscript by a first-time author. Being boring corresponds to not getting serious attention. Having at least two exotic fruits plays the role of being a celebrity: it is the exception to the usual unfavorable result.
This salad has bananas and only one exotic fruit, guava. So it belongs to the specified group and lacks the exception, just as the author is a first-time writer who isn't a celebrity. The conclusion says it will probably be boring. That preserves the original's likelihood rather than inventing a guarantee.
- C
Starting with the conclusion isn't itself a problem. We should still compare the reasoning. Here, a general tendency applies directly to a meeting whose agenda consists only of zoning issues. There isn't a separate exception whose absence must be checked. C has the likely result, but not the original's rule-plus-exception structure.
- D
This gives two routes: a surviving spouse generally receives the estate's bulk; otherwise surviving children do. With no surviving spouse, the argument selects the second stated recipient. The original doesn't choose between two specified recipients or outcomes. It checks that its case belongs to the ordinary group and lacks the separately identified exception. B maps those features more closely.
- E
This starts with the observed death rate and reasons backward to what the winter was like. Our argument starts with the kind of author and predicts the manuscript's reception. A normal death rate doesn't by itself tell us that the exception was absent; an unusually mild winter might still have that death rate for another reason. E uses the result to infer the circumstances, rather than using the circumstances to predict the result.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.