PrepTest 143, Section 1, Question 25
The availability of television reduces the amount of(41 more words not shown)
The reasoning in which one(10 more words not shown)
- AWhenever the money(31 more words not shown)
- BThe consumption of(35 more words not shown)
- CGlobal warming is(24 more words not shown)
- DVoting behavior is(35 more words not shown)
- EAdults read less(49 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Take television away, and people read more. Bring it back, and reading drops to its old level. I can see why the author thinks television is making the difference.
Television and reading compete for some of the same leisure time. If one option disappears, people may turn more often to the other. The return to the earlier reading level when television becomes available again makes that explanation more convincing.
The conclusion comes first: television reduces children's reading. The next two sentences support it by comparing what happens without television and what happens with it restored. This isn't a recommendation to ban television; a cause can have an effect without settling what we should do about it.
What we’re looking for
For a parallel, keep the roles flexible. We want a claim that one condition produces an effect, supported by the effect changing when the condition is absent versus present. The matching answer may put that conclusion at the end instead of the beginning.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The final sentence is the conclusion: a constant money supply stabilizes interest rates. Don't mistake the first sentence for the conclusion just because the original starts with its conclusion.
A constant money supply plays the role of available television. Stable interest rates play the role of the lower reading level. When the money supply isn't constant, interest rates fluctuate; when it is constant, the rates remain stable. Similarly, removing television changes the reading level, and restoring television returns it to the lower level.
Each argument uses what happens with and without a condition to support a causal claim about that condition. Interest-rate fluctuation doesn't have to mean rates literally rise or fall in the same direction as reading. The matching feature is the relationship between the condition and the changing result, not the word “down.”
- B
The first two parts are promising: candy disrupts appetite, and without candy the child becomes hungry. To complete the original pattern, we'd then want candy restored and appetite disrupted again. Instead, the last sentence changes the relationship: eating healthy meals reduces desire for candy. That's a claim about meals affecting candy consumption, not the return of candy affecting appetite.
- C
This links two causes in a chain. Industrial pollution increases carbon dioxide, and increased carbon dioxide causes warming, so pollution causes warming. It doesn't compare an outcome when a single condition is removed and present again. It connects the beginning and end of a sequence.
- D
Confidence and a supercilious facial expression are two different candidate attributes, with different effects on votes. The original tracks one factor—television availability—as it is removed and restored. Giving two examples of non-achievement factors affecting votes doesn't reproduce that comparison.
- E
This sounds close because it also concerns activities competing with reading. But its evidence repeats the time tradeoff: more other activity means less reading, and less reading means more other activity. It doesn't remove a particular condition and then show the earlier reading level return when that condition is restored. The familiar subject shouldn't distract us from A's closer reasoning.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.