PrepTest 114, Section 1, Question 7
Because people are generally better at detecting mistakes(23 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AThe best elementary(28 more words not shown)
- BOne must make(26 more words not shown)
- CJuries composed of(37 more words not shown)
- DPeople should always(29 more words not shown)
- ETwo people going(31 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A second pair of eyes can help. Always requiring one sounds like a lot.
Suppose I'm sending a casual text to a friend. My spouse might catch a typo I missed, but should I wait for a review every time I send a message? The benefit may not justify the delay. That's my initial objection to the word 'always': finding more mistakes doesn't establish that checking every piece of work is worth the time and cost.
But the question isn't asking us to attack that rule. It asks for an illustration. We need a case in which someone has another person check their work because the other person is better positioned to catch mistakes.
What we’re looking for
Imagine Billy preparing pizzas. He thinks he has spread the pepperoni evenly, but tends to miss gaps in his own work. John checks before the pizzas go out and spots the gaps Billy overlooked. Billy prepares the pizza; John checks it. That's the relationship to match, regardless of our concern about applying the rule to absolutely everything.
Working the answers
- A
A teacher who struggled with math may understand a student's difficulties better. But this explanation concerns the teacher's learning experience and ability to explain, not having another person check the teacher's own work. It doesn't illustrate the given rule.
- B
Explaining your views clearly to someone else isn't the same as asking that person to check them for mistakes. B says people more readily understand their own views and therefore need to make an effort to communicate. The principle concerns detecting errors, not merely understanding another person's meaning.
- C
The comparison here is between nonexperts and experts assessing lawyers' arguments. The original comparison is between someone checking their own work and another person checking it. A second lawyer could be that independent checker; the rule doesn't say the checker must lack legal expertise. C changes the feature that supposedly makes the reviewer better.
- DCorrect
The writer produces the work, and another person checks it for typographical errors. The reason is that the fresh reader doesn't already know what the writer meant to say, so the reader is better positioned to notice what was actually typed. This is the same pattern as Billy's work being checked by John: another person can notice errors the creator misses.
- E
Choosing someone else's dinner may introduce them to a new dish. It doesn't involve checking work they already produced or detecting a mistake in it. Having another person involved is only a surface similarity; the reason for that involvement is different.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.