PrepTest 138, Section 2, Question 9
A diet whose protein comes from fish is(47 more words not shown)
The reasoning in which one(12 more words not shown)
- ASome studies have(45 more words not shown)
- BGovernments are within(46 more words not shown)
- CA consumer is(52 more words not shown)
- DIf legislators spent(45 more words not shown)
- EIf we restrict(53 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A diet can be good for one person and impossible for everyone to maintain.
That's the tension here. We accept that getting protein from fish is healthier than getting it from red meat. But if everyone switched, most of the marine species supplying that protein would become extinct. The universal switch would destroy the supply that makes the diet possible.
I do have a question about the recommendation: does recommending something to everyone mean everyone will do it? Suppose only a small fraction follow the advice. We might avoid the disastrous result. The argument moves from the consequences of universal adoption to what we should universally recommend.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to match the reasoning, so keep that actual movement in view. First comes a practice that benefits an individual. Next, universal adoption would create a problem that undermines the practice itself. Finally, the author recommends against advising everyone to do it. A similar-sounding conclusion is not enough; the reason behind it must match too.
Working the answers
- A
The supplement might help individuals, and the conclusion also rejects a universal recommendation. But the reason is uncertainty about whether the supplement is safe for everyone. We aren't told that everyone taking it would create a collective problem that makes taking it impossible. To match the fish argument, we'd need that self-defeating consequence of universal adoption.
- B
High tobacco taxes could undermine their own revenue source by reducing smoking. That gives us a related self-defeating effect, but the other parts differ. The opening concerns the government's right to tax, not an individual's beneficial practice. And the conclusion recommends supplementing the revenue, rather than rejecting a recommendation that everyone adopt the practice.
- CCorrect
Buying only necessities and saving or investing the rest benefits an individual, just as the fish diet does. But if everyone follows that pattern, the resulting recession makes saving and investing impossible for most people. The collective adoption undermines the very practice being recommended, just as overfishing destroys the diet's food supply. The conclusion then rejects recommending the pattern to everyone. All the key relationships match.
- D
Campaigning less would leave a legislator more time for the job, but it could also cost that legislator reelection. This is a tradeoff faced by an individual, not a problem created by everyone adopting an individually beneficial practice. The conclusion explains why legislators campaign so much; it doesn't advise against a universal recommendation.
- E
Restricting development helps some species and limits the expansion of others. Those competing effects create uncertainty about which areas to protect. The argument doesn't say that universal adoption would make protection itself impossible, and it doesn't conclude that we should avoid recommending the practice to everyone. Sharing a concern about animals isn't a structural match.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.