PrepTest 124, Section 3, Question 23
Naturalist: A species can survive a change in(41 more words not shown)
The reasoning in which one(12 more words not shown)
- AThe problem with(26 more words not shown)
- BMany people gain(35 more words not shown)
- CSome students who(32 more words not shown)
- DPeople do not(33 more words not shown)
- EUntil ten years(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The problem is how fast we're changing the habitat.
The naturalist says species can survive an environmental change when it isn't too rapid. I can see the point: removing an occasional tree could give animals time to adjust, while removing a large part of the forest quickly could leave them without that opportunity. This is an illustration of the reasoning, not a claim about how much tree removal any particular species can tolerate.
The conclusion applies the distinction to woodland species. It identifies the rate of tree cutting, rather than tree cutting by itself, as the source of the threat.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, keep the supporting rule as well as that contrast. The rule says a change can be handled under a certain condition. The conclusion then attributes the problem to the missing condition, rather than to the change itself. The matching answer needn't be about speed. It could identify a different condition that makes another kind of change manageable.
Working the answers
- A
Using a limited supply faster means reaching exhaustion sooner. That's a statement about the pace of depletion. It doesn't begin with a condition under which the change avoids the problem, then distinguish the change itself from the missing condition. Sharing the subject of speed isn't enough to match the reasoning.
- B
This compares the satisfaction people get from two kinds of job performance, then recommends choosing jobs they can do well. Our naturalist identifies the source of a threat, rather than recommending an activity based on which produces more satisfaction. B doesn't supply the same rule about when a change is manageable.
- C
Some thorough students succeed, but that doesn't establish that thoroughness is the most important factor. Maybe time spent studying matters greatly too. C's conclusion uses a similar “not this, but that” contrast, but its evidence doesn't establish the condition that makes the activity manageable. It jumps from some successful cases to a ranking of importance.
- DCorrect
Knowing what the change will bring corresponds to environmental change occurring slowly enough. Under that condition, the relevant problem doesn't arise: people don't fear the change, just as species can survive it.
The employees' fear corresponds to the threat to woodland species. The conclusion attributes that fear to the company's failure to explain the change, rather than the change itself. That matches the naturalist's move from a general condition to a specific explanation of the problem.
- E
This starts with an earlier period of good soil and successful agriculture, then attributes a later decline to eroding soil. It doesn't state a general condition under which change can be endured and apply it to the current problem. The word “rapidly” doesn't turn that historical causal explanation into the naturalist's structure.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.