PrepTest 138, Section 3, Question 22
Radio producer: Our failure to attract new listeners(84 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(16 more words not shown)
- AWe should either(27 more words not shown)
- BWe should either(42 more words not shown)
- CFor the living(31 more words not shown)
- DSince we have(50 more words not shown)
- EWe should either(41 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Changing the music might help. But what if the missing new listeners are choosing other media instead of radio?
That would make a genre change less promising than the producer hopes. Still, the argument gives a concrete reason to reject the current approach: the small classical audience hasn't generated enough advertising revenue to cover the bills. Sticking exclusively with it risks the station's survival, and the producer says that risk is unacceptable.
We are asked to match the pattern, not to prove the new format will succeed. The producer presents two choices, identifies an unacceptable consequence of one, and recommends the other. The move isn't 'We know the new approach works.' It's 'We shouldn't accept the risk of staying with this one, so choose the alternative.'
What we’re looking for
Keep each role straight: classical-only programming is the rejected option; the risk of going out of business is the reason for rejection; adding other genres is the recommended option.
Working the answers
- A
Blinds and curtains give us two options, and expense could certainly be a reason to reject blinds. But A stops short of rejecting them outright. Its conclusion is conditional: if cost is our greatest concern, make curtains. The producer already says the business risk is unacceptable and recommends the alternative without leaving the relevant priority unresolved. The mismatch is that conditional recommendation, not that money can never matter.
- BCorrect
Buying blinds corresponds to sticking with classical music. Nonstandard windows mean special ordering the blinds, which means waiting. That wait is unacceptable because there isn't enough time, just as the business risk is unacceptable to the producer. Making curtains corresponds to adding other genres: it is the remaining option recommended after rejecting the first. B reproduces both the consequence and the reason we won't accept it.
- C
This is tempting because privacy provides a reason to favor curtains over valances alone. But the answer expressly allows curtains and valances together, which would still provide privacy. The conclusion rejects valances even alongside curtains without giving a reason to do so. It also directly identifies what supplies the desired benefit. The producer instead rules out one of two stated approaches because of its unacceptable risk, without proving the alternative delivers the desired result.
- D
The initial alternatives are buying more fabric or using the existing fabric for valances. Buying blinds is a further step required if we take the valance route. Difficulty matching fabric pushes us toward that route and its additional purchase. That extra chain differs from rejecting one initial option and directly recommending the other, as the producer does.
- E
This doesn't end by choosing between the original blinds and curtains. It says that if we don't make curtains, we should add valances, because blinds without valances would leave the windows bare. That's a conditional recommendation about an accessory to one option. The producer's conclusion directly selects one of the two initial approaches.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.