PrepTest 140, Section 2, Question 17
We can be sure that at least some(28 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AWe can be(33 more words not shown)
- BWe can be(25 more words not shown)
- CWe can be(41 more words not shown)
- DWe can be(29 more words not shown)
- EWe can be(37 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being on display doesn't automatically make a lamp well crafted. But the argument supplies exactly that missing rule: every item on display at Furniture Labyrinth is well crafted. Now the reasoning works.
We have actual halogen lamps in the store's display. Every displayed item has the property of being well crafted. So those lamps have that property, and at least some well-crafted halogen lamps exist. We don't need every manufacturer represented or every halogen lamp everywhere to meet the standard.
What we’re looking for
To match the reasoning, track the groups: some members of a category belong to a second group, and everything in that second group has a particular property. That establishes that some members of the first category have the property. The answer needs actual membership and a rule covering all members of the second group.
Working the answers
- A
The days with storms would correspond to the displayed items, and sudden temperature drops would correspond to being well crafted. But the answer gives only a chance of storms on most days. There might be no storms at all. The original gives actual lamps on display, so it can establish actual well-crafted lamps; a possibility of storms doesn't establish an actual sudden drop.
- BCorrect
Sonnets take the place of halogen lamps. Things Melinda has written take the place of items displayed at Furniture Labyrinth. Being disturbing takes the place of being well crafted.
Melinda has actually written sonnets, and everything she writes is disturbing. Those sonnets must therefore be disturbing, establishing that at least a few disturbing sonnets exist. That matches the original move from actual members of a group, through a rule covering the group, to the existence of some items with the relevant property.
- C
Gianna can use one of the shops, and the shops can do good work. Neither possibility establishes that she actually will receive good work. She might never take the car in, and capability alone doesn't guarantee what a shop will do. The original has actual displayed lamps and an unconditional rule about their quality, not just opportunities and abilities.
- D
The minnows correspond to the lamps and the nearby lakes to the display location. But having healthy fish in every lake doesn't make every fish there healthy. The healthy fish could be bass while all the minnows are unhealthy. The original's rule covers every displayed item; D's rule merely places some healthy fish in the same locations as the minnows.
- E
This is valid, but its conclusion has a different scope. All ingredients used at Matteo's are healthful and organic, so the cornmeal used there must be healthful and organic. The rule does apply in the correct direction.
However, E concludes something about the cornmeal restricted to that restaurant. The original concludes that at least some members of the broader category—halogen lamps—have a property, using the display as the evidence. B preserves that broader existence conclusion about sonnets. E would be closer if it concluded that at least some cornmeal is healthful and organic.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.