PrepTest 117, Section 3, Question 16
Retailers that excel in neither convenience nor variety(38 more words not shown)
The structure of the reasoning(15 more words not shown)
- ARunners who have(37 more words not shown)
- BBicyclists who have(42 more words not shown)
- CExcellence in a(56 more words not shown)
- DApples that are(45 more words not shown)
- EMost plants that(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A store doesn't have to be exceptional at everything to give people a reason to shop there.
Imagine a grocery store with an amazing selection, including the unusual pumpkin-flavored Oreos you want. Its convenience might only meet the ordinary standard, but the selection makes the trip worthwhile. Another store might be wonderfully convenient while carrying only the ordinary range of products. Either could attract customers without excelling in both areas.
That's what the examples in the argument establish. Stores that excel in neither area tend to struggle. Yet many successful stores excel in just one and meet competitors' standards in the other. So excellence in both cannot be required for success. This doesn't promise that every store with one strength will succeed; the successful examples are enough to show that both strengths aren't necessary.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel argument, keep the three steps: being ordinary in both areas tends not to produce success; some succeed with excellence in only one; therefore excellence in both isn't required. We want the same relationships, not just an answer mentioning two attractive qualities.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Speed and endurance take the places of convenience and variety. Winning a long-distance race takes the place of retail success. Runners who are ordinary in both are unlikely to win, but some champions are above average in just one. Those champions establish that being above average in both isn't necessary. Each step matches, including the conclusion about what success does not require.
- B
This changes the outcome from winning short races to winning long races. It also adds bicycle quality alongside endurance as a way someone with ordinary speed could win. The conclusion then makes a claim about who wins most races. Our original keeps the same kind of success throughout and concludes only that excellence in both traits isn't required.
- C
The conclusion goes in a different direction: excelling at every stroke supposedly makes victory almost certain. The original doesn't conclude that excellence guarantees success. It uses people who succeed without both strengths to rule out a requirement. C starts with successes lacking excellence and ends by promising success to those with excellence, which the examples don't establish.
- D
The apples initially look promising: firmness and flavor resemble our two traits. But the first premise concerns suitability for baking, while the later example and conclusion concern eating. The original keeps retail success as the outcome throughout.
D also declares flavor essential. The retailer argument doesn't single out convenience or variety as the trait every successful store must excel in. It gives us successful stores excelling in just one area and concludes that both aren't required. Don't overlook those differences because the final wording about not needing both sounds familiar.
- E
The useful plants described here have neither of the two traits: they are neither edible nor ornamental. They succeed for other reasons. Our successful retailers do excel in one of the named areas. E therefore shows that lacking both traits doesn't always make a plant useless; the original shows that possessing both strengths isn't required. Those are different claims supported by different examples.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.