PrepTest 130, Section 4, Question 25
Claude: When I'm having lunch with job candidates,(94 more words not shown)
The two analogies that Larissa(18 more words not shown)
- AIn matters involving(47 more words not shown)
- BIn professional decision-making(32 more words not shown)
- CGeneral conclusions regarding(41 more words not shown)
- DIndividuals whose behavior(43 more words not shown)
- EEvidence that a(45 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Claude sees a candidate add salt before tasting and concludes that the candidate is deciding without enough information. But perhaps the candidate already knows something relevant: restaurant food consistently tastes insufficiently salty to that person. The candidate could have a reason for the choice without testing this particular plate first.
That is what Larissa's examples bring out. She takes a sweater because she already knows supermarkets are too cool for her. She discards a credit-card offer unopened because she knows no offered interest rate would make it worthwhile for her. In each case, a general fact about her circumstances and preferences makes a fresh inspection unnecessary.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the principle behind those analogies. The missing step in Claude's criticism is from “did not check this instance” to “had inadequate information.” Larissa shows why prior knowledge could support a reasonable policy covering the instance.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
Each part fits. Salting food, wearing a sweater, and rejecting an offer concern the person's preferences or circumstances. The person acts without first checking the particular plate, store temperature, or offer. But that action may rest on a reasoned policy supported by general knowledge.
Larissa is not claiming that every unexamined decision is sensible. She is showing why the lack of a fresh check is not good evidence, by itself, that the decision was faulty. Claude cannot simply assume that no tasting means no adequate information.
- B
Claude is making a professional hiring judgment, but the behavior he observes is a personal choice about seasoning, not job-related performance. B concerns inferring character from job-related behavior. Larissa instead questions whether the seasoning choice even demonstrates faulty reasoning. B misses both the kind of observed behavior and the substance of her response.
- C
Claude says that he counts the behavior against a candidate, not that he bases the hiring decision exclusively on it. C's restriction on exclusive reliance therefore does not address his stated policy. More fundamentally, Larissa explains why this behavior could be reasonable; she does not merely limit how heavily it should weigh in a hiring decision.
- D
Claude's stated concern is inadequate information, not failure to conform to social expectations. Larissa also does not claim that everyone should adopt her sweater or credit-card policies. Her examples explain reasonable choices given her own circumstances, not a rule about unconventional behavior and policies for everyone.
- E
This concedes that the personal decision is bad and asks us to forgive an occasional lapse. Larissa's point comes earlier: the decision may be perfectly reasonable because the person already knows enough. Explaining why it is not necessarily a lapse is different from accepting a lapse and saying it should not affect the job assessment.
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.