PrepTest 149, Section 4, Question 23
No nonfiction book published by Carriage Books has(27 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(15 more words not shown)
- ANo actor represented(46 more words not shown)
- BNo hotel owned(29 more words not shown)
- CPranwich Corporation has(41 more words not shown)
- DJames Benson has(32 more words not shown)
- EConway Flooring has(28 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
That conclusion works. A nonfiction book would be an exception to the claim that every book last year earned a profit.
What we’re looking for
The first rule says this publisher's nonfiction books never make money. It doesn't tell us how many nonfiction books the publisher has produced; perhaps there have been none. But once we're told that every book in last year's group was profitable, we can exclude nonfiction from that group. For the parallel, keep track of three roles: a category that never has a feature, a selected group whose members all have that feature, and the conclusion that none of the selected group belongs to the excluded category.
Working the answers
- A
The terms don't stay aligned. The first statement rules out an important role in a major movie. The second supplies an important acting role, which could be in a play. The conclusion then rules out working in any movie at all.
An actor could have an important stage role and a small role in a major movie. Both premises would be true while the conclusion was false. In the original, 'earned a profit' keeps the same meaning and rules out nonfiction within last year's profitable books. A changes what kind of role matters and then makes a broader claim about movie work.
- B
This valid argument directly applies a rule to a member of a group: no Bidmore hotel serves that specialty; Cray Springs is a Bidmore hotel; therefore Cray Springs doesn't serve it. The original instead identifies a group whose members all have the feature and excludes a category from that group. The difference is how the rule is used, not simply that B names one hotel.
- CCorrect
Pranwich corresponds to Carriage Books. Marketing employees are the category excluded from getting the benefit, like nonfiction books excluded from earning a profit. A bonus corresponds to a profit, and systems analysts correspond to the selected group of books published last year.
Every analyst received a bonus, while no marketing employee ever received one. So none of those analysts can have been in marketing. A marketing analyst would violate the no-bonus rule, just as a profitable nonfiction book would violate the original no-profit rule. The roles and the conclusion line up.
- D
This also reasons validly, but by a different arrangement. Having a city business file requires doing business with the city. Benson has never done so, so he can't have the file. It tests one individual's failure to meet a requirement. The original uses a shared feature of every member of a selected group to establish that the group contains none of an excluded category.
- E
The restriction is local: no hardwood installation for Woodridge customers. Having many customers there doesn't establish that the company never installs hardwood anywhere. It could install hardwood for customers in another town. The original stays within the publisher and the selected group; E expands a restriction on one group of customers into a claim about the company's entire business.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.