PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 25
Wealth is not a good thing, for good(13 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(13 more words not shown)
- AAlex loves to(21 more words not shown)
- BIsabella must be(16 more words not shown)
- CGrowth in industry(18 more words not shown)
- DSarah's dog is(13 more words not shown)
- EThere is usually(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Can something be good if it causes harm? We might debate that in real life, but this argument gives us a strict rule: good things cause no harm at all. Work with that rule.
Wealth causes harm at least sometimes. That is enough to disqualify it. The rule doesn't say good things usually avoid harm or that their benefits outweigh their costs. Even one harmful case conflicts with 'no harm at all,' so the conclusion follows from the stated premises.
For the parallel, keep the roles concrete. Wealth is the thing being classified. Good things are the group that excludes harm. Causing harm is the feature that keeps wealth out of the group. We want another argument that rules something out of a group because it has a feature no member of that group has.
What we’re looking for
The sentences can appear in a different order. The original states its conclusion first, but an answer can put the conclusion last and still make exactly the same move.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Alex plays the role of wealth. The chess club plays the role of good things. Loving golf plays the role of causing harm. No chess-club member loves golf, just as no good thing causes harm. Alex loves golf, just as wealth causes harm. Therefore Alex is outside the club, just as wealth is outside the category of good things.
A gives the facts first and the conclusion last. That change in order doesn't change the relationships or the fact that the conclusion follows.
- B
Even if we treat 'happy' and 'contented' as equivalent here, the reasoning doesn't work. Happy people smile and rarely cry, but someone could display those behaviors without being happy. B uses a group's features to put Isabella into the group. We need a feature that rules someone out because no member can have it. B fails both that pattern and the original's valid reasoning.
- C
This sounds similar because it calls something 'not a good thing.' But it weighs an economic benefit against a pollution problem. It never states a rule that excludes all harmful things from the category of good things. Sharing the conclusion's vocabulary doesn't supply the same reasoning.
- D
Most dachshunds hunt poorly. That leaves room for a dachshund that hunts well, and Sarah's dog could be one. The original's rule leaves no comparable exception: good things cause no harm at all.
If D said all dachshunds hunt poorly, the strong hunter could be ruled out and the reasoning would match. With 'most,' it can't. This one word changes whether the conclusion follows; it isn't a cosmetic difference.
- E
An ordinary traffic pattern, with a holiday exception, gives a reason to be surprised by today's light traffic. It doesn't give an absolute rule that excludes something from a category. Both 'usually' and the conclusion about surprise differ from the original's strict rule and definite exclusion.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.