PrepTest 124, Section 1, Question 19
People who have habitually slept less than six(49 more words not shown)
The reasoning in which one(13 more words not shown)
- AWhen a small(35 more words not shown)
- BCertain small companies(40 more words not shown)
- CIt must be(36 more words not shown)
- DUsually, the financial(45 more words not shown)
- EA small company's(31 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe more sleep is helping. But what if something else changed at the same time? Imagine people starting a medication that both helps them sleep and reduces anxiety. In that situation, the longer sleep and lower anxiety could appear together without the longer sleep itself causing the improvement. That's a possible alternative, not a medical claim about a particular drug.
The argument's reasoning is still easy to track. People who move from less than six hours to at least eight typically feel less anxious afterward. The author takes that observed pattern as a reason to think most people currently sleeping less than six hours can probably reduce anxiety by making the same change.
What we’re looking for
This is a parallel-reasoning question. We need that whole pattern: people make a particular change, an improvement generally follows, and the author predicts that most others who haven't made the change can probably produce the improvement by making it. Keep the level of certainty and the proposed action together. The argument offers a likely benefit, not a guarantee.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
First-time Internet advertising corresponds to changing the sleep habit. The financial improvement corresponds to the decrease in anxiety. Small companies making that change generally improve, just as people making the sleep change typically feel better. The conclusion then says most companies that haven't advertised can probably improve by starting.
“When a small company” describes companies of that kind generally; it isn't a report about just one named company. Both arguments use a general observed tendency to predict a probable benefit from the same action.
- B
“Certain small companies” tells us that some companies improved. It doesn't establish the general tendency we had in the original premise. Those cases could be a very small minority. The conclusion then reaches most small companies, so this begins with weaker support than the original's typical pattern.
- C
“Must” and “any” turn a probable result for most into a guaranteed result for every company. It also shifts from first starting to advertise to increasing advertising. Our argument concerns making a specified change and a likely benefit, not an inevitable benefit from any increase.
- D
The premise says improvement usually happens only if the company starts advertising. That treats advertising as a requirement for improvement. Our premise instead says improvement typically follows the change. Requiring a step doesn't establish that taking the step will produce the result, so D starts with a different relationship.
- E
The conclusion leaves out achieving the result by starting to advertise. It says the companies could become financially strong, without linking that possibility to the proposed action. It also changes improving a financial situation into being financially strong. A struggling company can improve and still be struggling. A preserves both the action and the relative improvement.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.