PrepTest 125, Section 2, Question 10
Helen: Reading a book is the intellectual equivalent(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- Aquestioning how the(8 more words not shown)
- Bdisputing the scope(7 more words not shown)
- Carguing that Helen's(7 more words not shown)
- Ddrawing an analogy(6 more words not shown)
- Edenying the relevance(6 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can follow Helen's comparison. She says that when you read, you give up other uses of your time in the hope of gaining future opportunities. That's like putting money into an investment instead of spending it now. She isn't promising that every book will pay off; she's describing the hoped-for return.
Randi says this works only for vocational books—books related to work. Fiction, Randi argues, is more like watching a sitcom: time spent without a useful return. We don't have to agree with that judgment about fiction to see the response. Randi limits how far Helen's investment comparison applies and offers the sitcom comparison for the excluded category.
What we’re looking for
So, for the question about Randi's technique, I'd predict: challenge the reach of one analogy by using another. We're describing the disagreement, not deciding whether novels are worth reading.
Working the answers
- A
Randi doesn't ask where Helen got evidence or how she collected it. The reply challenges the comparison itself by distinguishing vocational reading from fiction and comparing fiction with something else.
- BCorrect
'Scope' means how widely Helen's analogy applies. Helen discusses reading a book generally; Randi says the investment comparison applies only to vocational books. The new analogy, fiction as sitcom watching, is the means of challenging that broader scope.
- C
Randi doesn't follow Helen's reasoning through to an absurd result. A reply like 'By that logic, you should spend every waking moment reading' would try that approach. Randi instead says that the investment comparison doesn't fit a category of books and supplies a competing comparison.
- D
Randi isn't comparing something new with a particular example Helen offered. Helen compares reading with financial investment; Randi compares fiction with sitcoms to dispute how broadly Helen's comparison works. D misses the challenge to the original analogy.
- E
Randi doesn't dismiss an example as irrelevant. The reply accepts Helen's comparison within a narrower range and offers another analogy for fiction. That's a dispute over the comparison's applicability, not a claim that an example has nothing to do with the topic.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.