PrepTest 126, Section 3, Question 15
Theodore will be able to file his tax(61 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(17 more words not shown)
- AGiven the demands(45 more words not shown)
- BTovah cannot attend(45 more words not shown)
- CMark's children will(54 more words not shown)
- DIf Teresa is(36 more words not shown)
- ESusannah will have(47 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Theodore needs two things that can't happen together.
To file on time, he needs an accountant to prepare the return, and he needs that accountant not to ask for more documentation. But hiring the accountant guarantees a request for more documentation. Meeting the first requirement defeats the second.
Try either route. Without an accountant, Theodore fails the first requirement. With an accountant, he fails the second. There's no way to satisfy both, so the conclusion that he can't file on time follows.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, keep those roles straight: an outcome requires two conditions; satisfying one ensures the other fails; therefore, the outcome is impossible. We need more than an argument about a plan not working. We need this particular conflict between its requirements.
Working the answers
- A
Timothy's argument predicts where he'll spend a free evening based on his schedule and his recent spending. It doesn't establish two requirements that cannot coexist. Its conclusion is also only probable, while Theodore's conclusion follows necessarily from the incompatible requirements. The topic of future plans isn't enough to make the structures match.
- B
This is a chain: being away on business means missing the concert, and missing that concert means no remaining concert opportunity this month. Tovah will be away, so she cannot attend one. The conclusion follows, but there's no requirement that itself defeats another requirement. One stated circumstance sets off a chain of consequences.
- C
Being content requires video games, and playing video games requires time without other planned activities. That links the conditions together: if there's no break from planned activities, the children can't play and won't be content. A break could let the requirements coexist. Theodore's argument instead shows that meeting one requirement necessarily destroys the other, leaving no successful route.
- D
This gives a rule—no first-class seat means a business-class seat—and tells us Teresa won't be in first class. The business-class conclusion follows directly. There's no pair of incompatible requirements and no conclusion that an intended outcome is impossible.
- ECorrect
A relaxing vacation corresponds to filing on time. Well-behaved children correspond to having an accountant, while not suspecting mischief corresponds to not being asked for documentation. Both are required for the desired outcome.
But especially good behavior makes Susannah suspect mischief, just as hiring the accountant brings the documentation request. Meeting one requirement defeats the other. If the children don't behave especially well, she fails the first requirement; if they do, she fails the second. Either way, a relaxing vacation is ruled out by the premises.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.