PrepTest 134, Section 3, Question 25
Journalist: The trade union members at AutoFaber Inc.(44 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(15 more words not shown)
- AThe company will(35 more words not shown)
- BRodriguez will donate(56 more words not shown)
- CReynolds and Khripkova(37 more words not shown)
- DLopez will run(44 more words not shown)
- EThe new course(50 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The union's past behavior makes an agreement look unlikely. It doesn't make an agreement impossible. Perhaps new leadership would be more willing to accept an arbitrator's decision this time.
Still, the journalist only predicts that a strike is likely. The reasoning is that avoiding the planned strike through arbitration requires both sides to accept the result as binding. Past experience suggests the union probably won't meet that requirement, so the journalist expects the strike to go ahead.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, focus on the requirement and the track record: an outcome needs a condition; past performance gives us reason to doubt the condition will be met; therefore the outcome probably won't occur. We want that movement from historical evidence to a likely failure, not a guarantee that failure must occur.
Working the answers
- A
No additional stock means downsizing, and downsizing leads to shareholders demanding a change. The conclusion follows those two steps to a definite demand for change. The original has no comparable extra consequence after the strike. It also uses past experience to predict what is likely, rather than a definite chain from a stated missing condition.
- B
Naming the wing after Rodriguez is required for the donation. The remaining information is used to suggest that the wing will receive her name, and the conclusion then predicts the donation. That's moving from apparently meeting a requirement to claiming success. The original moves from likely failure to meet a requirement to likely failure of the desired outcome. B also lacks the matching historical-performance basis.
- C
The partners' constant squabbling is compared with the qualities of good partners to support a definite judgment of unsuitability. We aren't given a future outcome with a particular requirement, a record suggesting that requirement won't be met, and a probable failure. The disagreement topic is superficial; the reasoning is arranged differently.
- DCorrect
Winning the marathon corresponds to averting the strike. Good hydration corresponds to the agreement needed for the proposed arbitration to work. The sponsors' poor record at keeping athletes hydrated corresponds to the union's history of not agreeing. Each argument therefore predicts that the desired outcome probably won't happen.
Lopez's running in the race just sets the scene. It doesn't need to be mapped to winning or losing. Keep the central outcome distinct from that background, and the requirement, past-performance evidence, and probable negative conclusion line up.
- E
An available qualified instructor would lead to a spring course. The answer treats the absence of that condition as enough to rule out the course, although the rule doesn't say it is the only way the course could be offered then. The original expressly gives a requirement and uses a historical record to make a probability judgment. E instead gives an either-season setup and a categorical conclusion based on present staffing.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.