PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 23
Town councillor: The only reason for the town(62 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(15 more words not shown)
- AThe reason for(44 more words not shown)
- BInsecticides are designed(43 more words not shown)
- CThe purpose of(42 more words not shown)
- DThe function of(40 more words not shown)
- ETraffic patterns that(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Banning it in the park doesn't mean the children will stop skateboarding.
They'll move to the streets, where the councillor says it's even more dangerous. That makes the recommendation against a ban sensible. The park can be dangerous and still be the safer place to let the activity continue.
What we’re looking for
The opening also limits the purpose of a restriction: protecting children. I want to keep that purpose in mind for the parallel question. We're considering a measure meant to prevent harm, but rejecting it because it would push us toward something more harmful. The purpose, the proposed intervention and the worse result need to line up.
Working the answers
- A
This argues for retaining environmental reviews because protecting the environment matters in the long run, despite current economic concerns. It doesn't say that requiring those reviews would create greater environmental harm. We need a protective measure rejected because it would work against its own purpose.
- BCorrect
Follow the whole chain. The purpose of insecticides is to protect crops, just as the purpose of the skateboarding restriction is to protect children. Aphids damage the tomatoes, just as skateboarding in the park endangers children.
But the proposed response makes a worse threat more likely. The insecticide kills wasps, which otherwise prey on resistant pests. Removing those wasps leaves the crops exposed to pests that do more damage than the aphids. That's like banning park skateboarding and pushing the children into the more dangerous streets.
So the recommendation is to reject the proposed protective measure because of the greater harm it would bring about. My first focus was the opening's wording about “the only reason,” but B doesn't need to repeat that wording. It reproduces the argument's explanation of why the measure would undermine its purpose.
- C
Here, the threat the measure was meant to address has disappeared. The argument concludes that the measure is no longer needed. In our original, the danger hasn't disappeared: the park remains dangerous. The reason to reject the ban is that it would move the children into greater danger, not that they no longer need protection.
- D
The cedar already has the protection the sealer would provide, so the additional measure is unnecessary. That is different from saying the measure would cause worse deterioration. Our councillor isn't claiming the children are already naturally safe in the park; the councillor acknowledges a danger and compares it with a worse alternative.
- E
Faster traffic is itself undesirable in this location, so a measure meant to produce faster traffic is rejected. The original doesn't reject the goal of protecting children. It rejects a measure that would fail that goal by increasing danger. E objects to accomplishing the stated purpose; the councillor objects to undermining it.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.