PrepTest 131, Section 2, Question 16
All poets, aside from those who write only(23 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(14 more words not shown)
- AAll squeeze toys,(34 more words not shown)
- BAside from the(48 more words not shown)
- CAll visas are(30 more words not shown)
- DAll of this(33 more words not shown)
- EAll residential buildings(39 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Azriel is a lyrical composer, so he is a poet. The rule gives poets wit unless they write only epigrams. Azriel doesn't write epigrams, so that exception doesn't apply. The conclusion that he has wit follows.
Notice that 'though he is a lyrical composer' gives us another fact about Azriel. It doesn't infer that he is a composer from his not writing epigrams. Both facts are supplied, and together they let us apply the rule.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, keep four pieces in view: a general group has a property except for a specified subgroup; every member of a second group belongs to the general group; the particular case belongs to that second group and is outside the exception; therefore it has the property. Matching those relationships will help when the subject matter changes.
Working the answers
- A
Squeeze toys correspond to poets, cat designs to the exception, and infant safety to wit. But the next statement runs from squeeze toys to being prewrapped. We need a second group whose members are all squeeze toys. Knowing this item is prewrapped doesn't establish that it is a squeeze toy, just as knowing something about a property of poets wouldn't establish that someone is a poet. The safety conclusion isn't supported by the matching chain.
- B
Politicians correspond to poets, lawyers to having wit, and the two offices supply the exception. The trouble isn't simply that two offices are listed. The next rule again starts with politicians and gives them websites; it doesn't introduce a second group contained within politicians. The conclusion then uses that separate website rule instead of concluding that Sal is a lawyer after excluding the exceptions. The exception information is unnecessary to the conclusion B actually draws.
- C
Visas correspond to poets, visit permits to lyrical composers, assignment by this office to wit, and diplomatic channels to the exception. Those opening links match. But the conclusion assigns Will's permit to the exception. The original rules its exception out. A matching argument would say the permit wasn't issued through diplomatic channels and therefore, as a visit permit and thus a visa, was assigned by this office. C never supplies that crucial exclusion and reaches a different result.
- D
Winter garments take the general-group role, being on sale is the property, and designer clothes are the exception. We then learn shirts aren't designer clothes, but not that shirts are winter garments. Saying this shirt is on sale doesn't supply that membership: other kinds of garments might also be on sale. The original first establishes group membership and then applies the property, rather than inferring membership from the property.
- ECorrect
Residential buildings correspond to poets, and townhouses to lyrical composers. Being built last year is the exception, corresponding to writing only epigrams; being subject to the original fire code corresponds to having wit. Bloom House takes Azriel's place. It is a townhouse, so it is residential, and it wasn't built last year, so the exception is ruled out. The general rule therefore gives it the fire-code property. Every relevant step matches.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.