PrepTest 125, Section 4, Question 25
To get the free dessert, one must order(39 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(14 more words not shown)
- ATo get an(51 more words not shown)
- BTo be elected(42 more words not shown)
- CTo grow good(40 more words not shown)
- DTo drive to(38 more words not shown)
- ETo get a(48 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If you qualified for the dessert, how could you fail to qualify for the drink? You would have ordered both the entree and the salad. Either one of those orders would be enough to qualify you for the drink.
That's why the conclusion works. Someone who isn't eligible for the drink cannot have placed either qualifying order. That person therefore cannot meet the requirements for the dessert. Notice that this is about eligibility, not whether someone chooses to accept a free drink.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, keep both relationships straight. One result requires two things together. Either of those things is enough for a second result. The conclusion rules out the first result when the second is unavailable. We don't need a flaw here; we need another argument that makes the same valid connection.
Working the answers
- A
The first sentence fits: the executive position requires both a diploma and sales experience. But the next sentence gives a rule about certain employees who have worked there for six months. It doesn't say either qualification is enough for a second outcome, and it never makes six months' employment a requirement for the executive position. The conclusion adds that unsupported requirement.
- B
The opening relationships fit better. Election requires being liked and known; either trait leads to having something better to do. But then the conclusion rules out election for people who do have that other option. Our argument rules out dessert for people who don't have drink eligibility. Having something better to do doesn't prevent someone from running and winning anyway.
- CCorrect
Good azaleas correspond to the free dessert. Rich humus and low acidity correspond to the entree and the salad: both are required. Blueberries correspond to the free drink: either soil condition is enough to make that second result possible.
Someone who cannot grow blueberries must lack both qualifying soil conditions under these rules. That person cannot meet the conditions for good azaleas either. The conclusion follows in exactly the same way as the dessert conclusion.
- D
Driving to Weller requires one of two alternative routes, not two conditions together. And the second sentence gives a consequence of one route: taking the highway means missing the scenery. It doesn't establish the original's relationship in which either of two conditions enables a second result. The roles and connections differ, even though both arguments mention requirements.
- E
The premises line up: the discount requires both purchases, and either purchase earns a coupon. But the conclusion starts with the wrong missing result. It should say that someone who gets no coupon cannot get the discount.
Instead, E says no discount means no coupon. Imagine buying only frozen raspberries. You would qualify for the coupon while failing the two-purchase requirement for the discount. That possibility shows why E's conclusion fails and why it doesn't match our valid argument.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.