PrepTest 121, Section 1, Question 12
Extinction is inevitable for all biological species.(43 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(14 more words not shown)
- Alook for a(10 more words not shown)
- Bspend money on(11 more words not shown)
- Creinforce bridges against(10 more words not shown)
- Dtake a route(15 more words not shown)
- Eplant a flower(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Everyone will die eventually. Should we close the hospitals?
Of course not. Helping someone live longer can matter even if we cannot make that person live forever. That's the problem with the extinction argument. Accept, for this question, that every species will eventually die out. It still doesn't follow that protecting a species now has no justification. Preventing extinction today could give that species many more years of life.
The author skips from “We can't prevent the final outcome forever” to “There's no reason to delay it.” Our hospital comparison exposes that jump without disputing the premise about eventual death.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for parallel reasoning. Each answer completes the phrase “there is no reason to.” I'm looking for an action that could preserve something for a while, dismissed merely because the thing cannot last indefinitely. It's the same timing mistake: an eventual end is used to reject a benefit we could obtain before that end.
Working the answers
- A
A book being checked out sometimes doesn't mean it will eventually become permanently unavailable. This argument abandons the search because the book might be unavailable on a particular occasion. To match the original, we'd need something like, “Don't look for the book because every book eventually disintegrates.” The given reason is about occasional availability, not an unavoidable final end.
- BCorrect
The car corresponds to the species, preventive maintenance corresponds to protecting it, and the car's eventual failure corresponds to eventual extinction. The argument says not to spend on maintenance because no car lasts forever.
But an oil change could keep the car running longer without making it indestructible. Just as saving a species now needn't mean saving it forever, maintaining a car can be worthwhile even though the car will ultimately stop working. B repeats the same dismissal of a temporary benefit.
- C
Rare earthquakes aren't the same as inevitable destruction. This argument rejects reinforcement because the danger occurs infrequently. To match, it would need to say every bridge eventually falls, so there's no reason to keep this one standing longer. The stated reason concerns frequency of a risk, not certainty of the final outcome.
- D
A traffic jam can occur on any route; that doesn't mean a jam is certain on every route. D treats the possibility of the problem elsewhere as a reason not to avoid the usual jams. Our original assumes the ultimate bad outcome is inevitable, rather than merely possible.
- E
This concerns choosing soil in which plants are likely to die. It doesn't argue that all plants eventually die regardless of the soil, so helping them live longer is pointless. The reason is a problem with this particular growing environment, not the universal eventual end that drives the original.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.