PrepTest 119, Section 2, Question 18
Many physicists claim that quantum mechanics may ultimately(57 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AOnly a few(19 more words not shown)
- BFour companies have(19 more words not shown)
- CYour sister is(21 more words not shown)
- DA rare virus(17 more words not shown)
- EEach team member(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe this theory really will be the final one. But that would break the historical pattern the author gives us.
We don't need to understand quantum mechanics to follow the argument. Physicists think it may eventually explain all the fundamental phenomena. The author responds that every earlier theory thought to be final eventually failed to explain a new observation. From those past disappointments, the author predicts another disappointment: quantum mechanics won't be the final theory either.
What we’re looking for
The prediction could turn out wrong. Perhaps this theory differs in a way that matters. But our task is to find the most similar reasoning, so focus on the move the author actually makes: the hoped-for success has never happened before, so we shouldn't expect it in the current case. I'd look for past failures being used to predict one more failure, even if the subject changes completely.
Working the answers
- A
This moves from how many plant species grow in a climate to how many animal species can live there. It compares two kinds of organisms in the present. It doesn't use a history of failed attempts to predict that the next attempt will fail.
- B
The earlier companies succeeded in marketing the product, but the conclusion predicts that another company won't. That changes success into failure. Our argument carries a pattern of failure forward into another failure. The particular number of companies isn't the decisive difference; the direction of the pattern is.
- CCorrect
The sister is a strong player, giving us a reason someone might expect success, just as physicists are optimistic about quantum mechanics. But she has never won a tournament, corresponding to the previous theories never proving final. The conclusion predicts she won't win this tournament, corresponding to the prediction that this theory won't be final.
The wording doesn't reproduce every detail of the physics passage. There isn't an explicit group announcing that she'll win. What matters is the same supporting move: past lack of the relevant success is used to predict failure in the current case.
- D
The virus infected people before, and the conclusion predicts that it won't do so again. That's an event occurring in the past being used to predict its absence now. We need the past absence of success being used to predict continued absence of success. D takes the pattern in a different direction.
- E
This moves from the team members individually failing expectations to the team as a whole failing them. It is about the relationship between parts and a group. Our argument instead uses the history of earlier cases to predict the outcome of a new case. The presence of failure in both isn't enough to match those different moves.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.