PrepTest 141, Section 2, Question 17
If Suarez is not the most qualified of(24 more words not shown)
The reasoning in which one(13 more words not shown)
- AIf the excavation(35 more words not shown)
- BIf the lowest(34 more words not shown)
- CIf Kapshaw is(31 more words not shown)
- DIf Holihan did(37 more words not shown)
- EIf Perez is(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
This works. The most qualified candidate must be Suarez or Anderson: if it isn't Suarez, the premise tells us it's Anderson. Now elect the most qualified candidate and rule out Suarez as the winner. That leaves Anderson.
What we’re looking for
Keep the two steps separate when matching the reasoning. First we narrow down who has a particular quality. Then we say the person with that quality is chosen, eliminate one candidate, and select the other. The subject matter can change, but we still need two people, the quality that puts them in contention, and the choice of the remaining person.
Working the answers
- A
The first sentence is about how the contract gets awarded: if it doesn't go to the lowest bidder, it goes to Caldwell. Our first sentence instead identifies who the most qualified candidate is. A then introduces Qiu as the winner and concludes that the winner was the lowest bidder. We concluded who wins after being told the qualifying person wins. That is a different route and endpoint, even though A's reasoning can work.
- BCorrect
Dillon takes Suarez's place, and Ramsey takes Anderson's. Being the lowest bidder replaces being the most qualified. If Dillon isn't the lowest bidder, Ramsey is. Now the contract goes to the lowest bidder, and it doesn't go to Dillon, so it goes to Ramsey. That matches the original at every step: identify the two candidates for the relevant status, choose the person with that status, rule out the first, and select the second.
- C
The first sentence identifies possible recipients of the contract, not who has the lowest bid. It says Johnson wins if Kapshaw doesn't. Then the conclusion rules out Johnson and selects Kapshaw. Our argument first identifies the qualified candidates and then rules out the first candidate to select the second. C changes both what the premise establishes and which candidate is eliminated.
- D
The first sentence says that if Holihan isn't the lowest bidder, Easton isn't either. We need the second person to have the relevant status when the first doesn't. This negative statement doesn't establish that pair of alternatives. It also doesn't justify the conclusion: Holihan could be the lowest bidder and receive the contract while Easton does not.
- E
The first sentence matches: if Perez isn't the lowest bidder, Sullivan is. But the conclusion follows a different path. Neither candidate gets the contract, so it didn't go to the lowest bidder. That can be valid, but the original tells us the qualifying candidate does get chosen and then identifies which person it is. E instead rejects the qualifying-selection condition after ruling out both people.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.