PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 17
From the fact that people who studied music(56 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(15 more words not shown)
- AAlthough children who(54 more words not shown)
- BPeople who attend(59 more words not shown)
- CPeople whose diet(42 more words not shown)
- DThose who apply(41 more words not shown)
- EThose who engage(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Studying music and doing well at math go together. That doesn't tell us that music lessons created the math skills.
What if the same family encourages both activities? A child might study music because the family supports artistic interests and become good at math because the family also supports academic work. The two outcomes would then have a common source, without one causing the other. That's the alternative the author offers.
What we’re looking for
I might question how the author knows this explanation is “equally likely.” Merely identifying a possibility doesn't measure its likelihood. But we're asked to match the pattern of reasoning, so the important structure is clear: two things occur together; don't conclude that one causes the other, because a third factor could produce both. An answer that merely questions a causal claim won't be specific enough.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Failure to pay attention corresponds to studying music, and poor school performance corresponds to proficiency in math: these are the two associated outcomes. The argument rejects inferring that the first causes the second because an undiagnosed hearing problem could cause both. That hearing problem fills the role of the encouraging family. The direction of the outcomes—good or bad—doesn't matter. What matters is the same third factor providing an alternative explanation for both.
- B
This questions what foreign students' performance shows about the quality of their countries' secondary schools. It raises differences in evaluation standards and describes a selected group of students. It doesn't identify one shared cause that produces both of the associated outcomes, as the family does for music and math. The caution about drawing a conclusion isn't enough to match the specific explanation.
- C
This gets the first part right: a diet and a lower disease rate occur together, and we shouldn't automatically infer that the diet prevents disease. But its proposed explanation is coincidence. Our author supplies a particular common cause—the family environment—that could account for both observations. C leaves that key part out.
- D
Required coursework isn't a reported correlation between two outcomes. The argument says studying biology and chemistry is required for medical-school applicants, then distinguishes knowing those subjects from successfully applying the knowledge. It doesn't explain two associated outcomes by giving them a shared cause.
- E
Less vigorous exercise having benefits doesn't explain why vigorous exercisers tend to be healthy. Both kinds of exercise could help. To parallel the original, E would need some third factor that leads people both to exercise vigorously and to be healthy. Offering another potentially helpful activity doesn't supply that common cause.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.