PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 19
The recent concert was probably not properly promoted.(28 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(14 more words not shown)
- ADr. Smith, a(35 more words not shown)
- BProfessor Willis, who(34 more words not shown)
- CMy neighbor, who(38 more words not shown)
- DThe builder said(35 more words not shown)
- EProfessor Yanakita, who(36 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
How do we know the concert wasn't properly promoted? The argument doesn't point to missing posters or advertisements. It relies on Wells's prediction and the concert's failure to sell out.
Wells was certain that proper promotion would produce a sellout. If we accept that prediction, a concert that didn't sell out can't have received proper promotion. The author's conclusion is more cautious: it probably wasn't properly promoted, reflecting reliance on what this knowledgeable person said.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, keep all the jobs straight. An expert gives a definite conditional prediction. The predicted result doesn't happen. The author then concludes that the condition probably wasn't met. The expert's certainty and the author's 'probably' appear in different places.
Working the answers
- A
The doctor predicts only that the patient would probably survive with a highly skilled surgeon. That leaves room for a patient to die even when the stated condition is met; Wells's prediction was certain. A also shifts from the surgeon's skill to whether the procedure was properly performed. The original keeps proper promotion as the same condition throughout.
- B
The expert gives a probable assessment of the sample's contents, not a definite rule linking a condition with a result. The labeling rule is supplied separately. This resembles some of the original's conditional reasoning, but the expert plays a different role: the uncertain observation comes from the expert rather than the conditional guarantee.
- CCorrect
The experienced renovator corresponds to Wells. Proper repair corresponds to proper promotion, and damage no longer being noticeable corresponds to the concert selling out. The expert says the condition would produce the result.
But the damage is still noticeable, so the expected result hasn't occurred. The author concludes that the repair probably wasn't proper, just as the original concludes that promotion probably wasn't proper. The conditional rule, missing outcome, and cautious conclusion all match.
- D
The builder's rule predicts no need for repairs unless a storm causes damage. There was no major storm, yet repairs are needed, so the author concludes that the builder was wrong. Our original uses the expert's rule to infer that the relevant condition failed; D challenges the expert's prediction instead of accepting it to infer that a condition wasn't met. The word 'unless' isn't the problem—the original uses it too.
- E
This observes the predicted result and uses it to infer that the tests were properly conducted. Our original observes the absence of the predicted result. Proper testing might lead to finding lead without being the only way lead could be found, so E's positive-result inference doesn't match the original's missing-result reasoning.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.