PrepTest 139, Section 4, Question 25
Pauline: Some environmentalists claim that for the salmon(58 more words not shown)
The dialogue provides the most(10 more words not shown)
- Aproduction from other(19 more words not shown)
- Bthere will be(14 more words not shown)
- Cif the dams(17 more words not shown)
- Dsome environmentalists who(13 more words not shown)
- Efinding additional energy(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Pauline sees a tradeoff: breaching the dams might save the salmon, but she expects electricity costs to soar while the region's population and industry grow. Roger points out that the region's energy problem exists either way. The dams are already operating at optimal capacity, and he says additional sources will be needed even if the dams remain.
My first thought is that they agree the region will need new electricity sources. Roger says that outright. But does Pauline go quite that far? She describes growth and a cost problem if the dams are breached; she doesn't expressly discuss how new supplies would be obtained. I'd keep the prediction tentative and check what both speakers actually commit to.
What we’re looking for
For an agreement question, a sensible statement isn't enough. Each speaker's remarks need to support it. Neither person has given us a complete energy plan or a position on every part of the salmon debate.
Working the answers
- A
Pauline doesn't tell us how much other energy sources could produce or how soon that production could increase. Roger says more sources will be needed, not that increasing their output in the near future is impossible. A adds a claim about the limits of alternatives that neither establishes.
- BCorrect
This is more modest than predicting a particular increase or a shared plan for new sources: demand won't significantly decrease in the near future. Pauline's concern relies on growing population and booming industry continuing to put pressure on electricity supplies. Roger likewise expects a need for additional energy even with the existing dams operating at optimal capacity. Both remarks support continuing demand rather than a substantial drop.
- C
Pauline predicts higher costs if the dams are breached. She doesn't give a price forecast for dams that remain in service while operating below optimal capacity. Roger describes their current output but doesn't say what electricity prices would do in that different situation. We can't convert their separate statements into agreement on this new scenario.
- D
Roger doesn't discuss the environmentalists' priorities. Even Pauline reports their claim about what is required to save salmon, not necessarily what tradeoffs they would accept at any price. Believing an action is necessary for a goal doesn't by itself establish that the goal overrides every cost concern.
- E
Roger says additional sources are needed but doesn't predict their effect on prices. Pauline's cost warning concerns breaching the dams; she doesn't say that finding additional energy could never reduce costs. Neither statement supplies the shared price judgment E requires.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.