PrepTest 116, Section 2, Question 11
After examining the options, the budget committee discovered(43 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(13 more words not shown)
- AMarissa is just(35 more words not shown)
- BBy reducing the(35 more words not shown)
- CJohn's blood-alcohol level(31 more words not shown)
- DThis chocolate is(27 more words not shown)
- EHealth Dairy's sharp(35 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Cheap enough doesn't necessarily mean good enough. We could hand everyone a banana to use as a phone, and that would be inexpensive. It wouldn't give us much of a phone system.
But the committee's conclusion is only about the budget. QI's system costs little enough to meet the limit; Corelink's costs even less. Then Corelink's must meet the limit too. That works, regardless of how useful either system is. We shouldn't criticize a purchasing recommendation the argument never makes.
What we’re looking for
The parallel question asks for that same reasoning. Imagine a burger we can afford and another burger that costs less. The cheaper one is affordable too. Look for one item that already meets a cutoff, a second item even farther on the qualifying side, and a conclusion that the second must qualify.
Working the answers
- A
Jeff's greater height doesn't settle how high he can reach when he jumps. Marissa might jump much higher than Jeff. Reaching the ceiling depends on both height and jumping ability, while meeting the phone budget depends on the very cost being compared. A introduces another variable that can prevent its conclusion from following.
- B
Smoking fewer cigarettes doesn't guarantee Lana can run as far as Kate. The two people could differ in fitness or other ways that affect running. Unlike the phone prices, the single comparison here doesn't determine whether the second person meets the stated target.
- C
The comparison moves in the wrong direction. John is above the limit, but Paul's lower level could be above it or below it. Suppose the relevant cutoff were ten units: John could be at fifteen and Paul at twelve, or Paul could be at one. Lower than someone who exceeds a limit doesn't guarantee exceeding it too. Higher would carry the reasoning in the needed direction.
- D
The first chocolate fails to meet Luis's preference, whereas the first phone system already meets the budget. A darker chocolate moves toward the desired level, but we don't know whether it goes far enough. If Luis wants a darkness level of ten and the first chocolate is at one, the second could be at two.
D only says the second chocolate might be right, so that uncertainty isn't necessarily a mistake. It simply differs from the original's guaranteed result for an item already farther inside the qualifying range.
- ECorrect
The sharp cheddar already has little enough fat to qualify as low fat, just as QI's system already costs little enough to fit the budget. The mild cheddar has even less fat, just as Corelink costs even less. So the mild cheddar must meet the same fat limit. Each comparison moves farther onto the side that qualifies.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.