PrepTest 120, Section 4, Question 9
Writer: I collaborated with another writer on my(40 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AIf a person's(23 more words not shown)
- BA book sells(12 more words not shown)
- CIf a person's(22 more words not shown)
- DWriters who do(16 more words not shown)
- EWriters who collaborate(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
One successful collaboration doesn't tell us that the next collaboration will work just as well.
Suppose a writer's first partner was a famous novelist whose involvement helped the book sell. Would writing the next book with an unknown partner bring the same result? Maybe not. “A writer” could be someone entirely different, with different skills and a different audience.
We are told the previous book sold well as a result of the joint effort, so we can accept that success story. The question is what carries it forward. The author wants to collaborate again specifically so that the next book will also sell well.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for a principle that justifies that reasoning. A rule merely favoring collaboration would be less helpful than a rule connecting this writer's successful past collaboration to successful future ones. Keep both parts in view: the decision to collaborate and the result that is supposed to justify it.
Working the answers
- A
This would establish success if the writer used the same partner. But the argument only says the writer should collaborate with a writer. We don't know that it will be the same person. The extra condition leaves the proposed next collaboration uncovered.
- B
This makes collaboration necessary for a book to sell well. That gives the writer a reason to collaborate if sales are the goal. But doing something necessary doesn't guarantee success. A book could have two authors and still sell poorly. B therefore helps with the decision without establishing the predicted outcome that motivates it.
- CCorrect
The writer meets this rule's starting condition: a book sold well because of a collaboration. The rule then says future collaborations by that person will produce other books that sell well. That supplies the missing move from this past success to success on the next book, without requiring the same partner. It supports both collaborating again and expecting the desired sales result.
- D
A smaller chance without collaboration can make collaboration look attractive, but it doesn't establish that the next collaborative book will sell well. Even the better of two chances could still be a poor chance. C gives a much more direct rule covering this writer's situation and the predicted result.
- E
Are these good writers? We aren't told. Selling one book successfully doesn't establish that the authors meet this condition. Moreover, “usually” leaves room for unsuccessful collaborations. E doesn't justify the specific expectation as directly as C does.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.