PrepTest 147, Section 4, Question 13
While playing a game with a ball, both(48 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(8 more words not shown)
- AWhile looking after(34 more words not shown)
- BGerald hired Linda(43 more words not shown)
- CTerry and Chris(32 more words not shown)
- DAlexis and Juan(34 more words not shown)
- ESusan and Leland(29 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
They were both careless. Why should only John have to do chores? Because the chores are compensation for a broken window, and John's throw broke it. That doesn't mean Emma behaved well or should escape every possible consequence. It means the argument separates taking a risk from actually causing the damage for which someone must pay.
What we’re looking for
We need another case that uses that same distinction: two people participate in risky behavior, one causes damage, and that person alone must compensate for it. Match those jobs in the reasoning, not the ball or the window.
Working the answers
- A
Laura takes a risk by leaving the door unlocked, but nothing bad happens. The conclusion is about whether to trust her again. We have one careless person, no resulting damage, and a decision about future trust. We don't have two careless participants and compensation assigned to the one who caused harm.
- B
Linda and Seung follow instructions carefully, and the question is whether their employer should pay for work they performed. Payment here is a wage, not compensation owed by the worker who damaged someone else's property. To resemble the original, we would need something like both movers taking a careless risk and only the one who broke a chair having to pay for it. That is not what B says.
- CCorrect
Terry and Chris both participate in the risky activity, just as Emma and John both play carelessly. Chris's car causes the damage, just as John's throw breaks the window. Requiring Chris alone to pay uses the same distinction between sharing in the risky behavior and actually causing the particular damage. Terry takes Emma's role; Chris takes John's.
- D
The people receiving the refund didn't cause the malfunction; an earlier renter did. And the person required to refund the money is the boat's owner, not one of the two current renters singled out for causing damage. This is a refund for a failed rental, not a choice between two careless participants based on which one caused harm.
- E
Susan and Leland both disregard a warning, but Susan is injured herself, and the conclusion rejects her claim against the pond's owners. It doesn't single out one of the two skaters to compensate a third party for damage that skater caused. Shared risk-taking alone isn't enough to make the reasoning match.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.