PrepTest 130, Section 3, Question 14
If Juan went to the party, it is(32 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(14 more words not shown)
- AAccording to the(38 more words not shown)
- BKapinski, our new(16 more words not shown)
- CIf the lottery(37 more words not shown)
- DIf Clarissa missed(35 more words not shown)
- EThis year's election(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Juan's presence would make Maria's enjoyment highly unlikely. That doesn't mean Juan is the only possible reason she could have a bad time. Someone else could upset her, or the party could disappoint her for some other reason.
But the observation goes the other way: Maria did enjoy the party. The argument uses that outcome, which would have been unlikely if Juan attended, to conclude that Juan probably wasn't there. Keep the qualification. The argument concludes that his presence is highly unlikely, not impossible.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, look for that same sequence: if a certain event occurred, an observed result would be unlikely; the result did occur; therefore, the event is unlikely to have occurred. The names and the setting can change, but the roles and the probabilistic conclusion should match.
Working the answers
- A
Losing the goalie would make winning unlikely. But instead of observing the contrary result—a win—and using it to doubt the goalie loss, A begins with low winning odds and uses them to predict losing the goalie. The newspaper gives each of eight teams an equal chance, so the team could have low odds even while keeping its goalie. This moves in a different direction from Maria's actual enjoyment to Juan's unlikely attendance.
- B
Most insurance sellers are friendly, and Kapinski sells insurance, so Kapinski is probably friendly. That applies a tendency of a group to a member. It doesn't observe a result that would be unlikely under a proposed event and then use that result to doubt the event.
- C
The first condition resembles the setup: a fair lottery would make this person's victory unlikely. But C then adds another hypothetical statement about how likely victory would be under an unfair lottery. It doesn't establish that the winner actually had a high chance of winning, which would oppose the first statement's claim about low likelihood. Winning and being likely to win are different. Instead of the original's conditional, observed contrary result, and matching conclusion, C tries to decide fairness using two hypothetical descriptions of the winner's chances.
- DCorrect
Clarissa missing the bus corresponds to Juan attending the party. Clarissa arriving on time corresponds to Maria enjoying the party: each result would be unlikely if the first event occurred. Clarissa did arrive on time, just as Maria did enjoy the party. Each argument therefore concludes that the event that would have made the observed result unlikely probably did not occur. The conclusion's 'quite unlikely' preserves the probabilistic wording.
- E
This does have a conditional relationship: unless the election is unfair, Popov probably will not win. But it predicts an outcome from the expectation that the election will be fair. It does not observe a Popov victory and use that unexpected result to question fairness. It also concludes definitely that Popov will not win, while the original keeps its conclusion qualified as highly unlikely.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.