PrepTest 144, Section 3, Question 19
Juarez thinks that the sales proposal will be(37 more words not shown)
The reasoning in which one(14 more words not shown)
- AA leading science(43 more words not shown)
- BThe data from(43 more words not shown)
- CA leading science(45 more words not shown)
- DA leading science(44 more words not shown)
- EThe data from(37 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Juarez is reliable about matters like this and thinks leaving the proposal unchanged will get it rejected. If we really aren't going to rewrite it, rejection sounds like a reasonable expectation.
Be careful about what the prediction says. Rewriting might improve our chances, but it doesn't guarantee acceptance. The statement only tells us what Juarez expects if we don't rewrite. And reliable doesn't mean infallible, which is why the conclusion says the proposal will probably be rejected.
For the parallel question, keep three jobs separate. First, a reliable source gives a rule connecting a condition with an outcome: no rewrite leads to rejection. Second, we are told the condition will occur: there will be no rewrite. Third, we use that reliable opinion to predict the outcome: probable rejection.
What we’re looking for
We need the source to vouch for the connection, a separate fact meeting the condition, and a conclusion about the resulting outcome. Merely mentioning a reliable expert won't reproduce the whole argument.
Working the answers
- A
This does include a condition: accurate data would mean the medication is safe. But the journal's opinion concerns whether the data are accurate, not whether accurate data establish safety. The journal vouches for the starting fact, and the argument then applies a separately supplied rule. In the original, Juarez supplies the rule, while the fact that the proposal won't be rewritten is supplied separately. The authority plays a different role.
- B
This also contains a conditional claim: the journal would not have concluded that the medication was safe unless the manufacturer's data proved it safe. The argument then uses the journal's actual conclusion to infer that the data provide that proof. It reasons about what evidence must have been behind an existing judgment. Our original instead applies a reliable source's prediction to a separately established condition and reaches a probable outcome. Those aren't the same steps.
- CCorrect
The science journal plays Juarez's role. It states the connection: if the company's data are accurate, the medication is safe. The company's accurate data correspond to the proposal not being rewritten: that is the separately given fact satisfying the condition.
The journal is rarely wrong, just as Juarez is reliable. We therefore conclude that the medication is probably safe, matching the conclusion that the proposal will probably be rejected. The subject matter and whether the condition is worded positively don't matter; the roles and reasoning match.
- D
The journal supplies both a claim about the data and a rule connecting accurate data with safety. But the conclusion is only that the data are probably accurate. It never uses that condition to reach probable safety. That would be like using Juarez's reliability to conclude that the proposal probably won't be rewritten, instead of concluding that it will probably be rejected. D stops on the wrong part of the chain.
- E
This relies on the journal's opinion that the data are probably accurate and concludes that the data are probably accurate. There is no separate condition-and-outcome rule being applied. It matches the use of a reliable source, but leaves out the additional structure that takes us from no rewrite to probable rejection.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.