PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 20
To date, most of the proposals that have(30 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(15 more words not shown)
- AMost of the(35 more words not shown)
- BMost of the(25 more words not shown)
- CMost of the(36 more words not shown)
- DMost of the(41 more words not shown)
- EMost of the(34 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The Citizens League has usually backed proposals that passed. That gives us a reason to expect the next endorsed proposal to pass too—if the old pattern continues.
Maybe the league will lose influence, or the council's preferences will change. The past doesn't guarantee the future. But notice that the argument says “probably,” not “certainly,” and this question asks us to match its pattern rather than identify a flaw.
What we’re looking for
Keep the group and the outcome straight. Among proposals endorsed by the league, most have passed. The author then takes a future proposal with that same starting feature—league endorsement—and predicts the same usual outcome—passage. We want a past pattern used to predict what will probably be true of a new item in that group.
Working the answers
- A
The opening is close: most past Vasani grants went to academic biologists. A matching conclusion would be that the next Vasani grant will probably go to an academic biologist. But A adds a condition about most of next year's grants going to academics, then predicts the makeup of that academic subgroup: most will be biologists.
That changes the structure from predicting an outcome for a new instance to predicting a proportion within a future group under an extra condition. A asks how next year's academic recipients will be divided, rather than predicting the type of recipient for a particular new grant. E keeps that new-instance structure.
- B
This moves from individual trees to tree species, not from past instances to a new future instance. Imagine hundreds of trees from one deciduous species and only a few trees from each of several evergreen species. Most individual trees could be deciduous even though most species weren't. B changes what we're counting instead of extending the same pattern to the next tree.
- C
The premise starts with editors and tells us most were unsympathetic to farmers. To match, we'd start with a new editor and predict a lack of sympathy. Instead, C starts with someone who is sympathetic and predicts that person's job. It works from the other end of the relationship, rather than using membership in the original group to predict its usual attribute.
- D
The past pattern is that late entries were rejected. A parallel prediction would say that a future late entry will probably be rejected too. D instead predicts that past entrants will change their behavior and submit early. That adds a learning-from-experience story; it doesn't simply carry the old late-entry/rejection pattern forward.
- ECorrect
Previously found stone artifacts correspond to previously endorsed proposals. Being a domestic tool corresponds to being passed by the council. Most past items with the first feature had the second feature, so a new item with the first feature will probably have the second. The next stone artifact is predicted to be a domestic tool in exactly the way a future endorsed proposal is predicted to pass.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.