PrepTest 150, Section 2, Question 22
The writers of the television show Ambitions could(39 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AIf a company’s(44 more words not shown)
- BIf a company’s(38 more words not shown)
- CIf ViqCo’s executives(40 more words not shown)
- DIf ViqCo’s executives(38 more words not shown)
- ESince ViqCo’s failure(40 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Realistic characters aren't necessarily what the audience wants.
Imagine making a show like The Simpsons strictly realistic. Exaggeration might be part of what viewers enjoy. For Ambitions, we don't have to guess: we're told more realism would shrink the audience, and the writers will choose to maximize that audience. So the argument's decision makes sense. They won't make the change that would produce the result they're avoiding.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, keep that sequence: if the first thing happens, a second thing follows; the second thing is ruled out, so the first won't happen. Here, more realism would mean fewer viewers. The writers' stated choice rules out accepting that loss, so the argument rules out developing more realism. We need an answer that uses the same relationship to reach a conclusion about the case at hand.
Working the answers
- A
The rule says executives aren't fairly blamed if a broader collapse caused the company's failure. The next sentence only says there was a broader collapse when the company failed. Happening at the same time doesn't establish that the collapse caused this particular failure. Even setting that gap aside, A tries to establish the rule's starting condition and then draw its result. The original instead rules out the result and therefore rules out the change that would produce it.
- B
This removes one possible reason not to blame the executives and concludes they deserve blame. But even without a broader economic collapse, the failure could have had another cause for which the executives weren't responsible. In the original's terms, B says the starting condition is absent and assumes its result must also be absent. The original goes the other direction: it rules out the result that the starting condition would require.
- C
This is close. If responsibility requires being able to say what should have been done differently, an inability to identify that alternative would rule out blaming the executives. That captures the same kind of logical relationship. But C's conclusion remains conditional: if you cannot identify the alternative, you shouldn't blame them. It never says we actually cannot identify one. The original adds an actual choice by the writers and concludes that the specific change won't occur. D includes that extra case-specific step.
- DCorrect
Executive responsibility would mean losses greater than competitors' losses. The company instead had smaller losses, so the required result didn't occur. The argument therefore rules out executive responsibility. Responsibility plays the role of making the characters more realistic; greater losses play the role of shrinking the audience. Each argument rules out the result and then rules out what would have produced that result.
- E
This moves from no blame for failure caused by an economic collapse to no credit for success caused by economic growth. It compares responsibility for two different outcomes. It doesn't say that a required result failed to occur and use that fact to rule out its proposed cause. The original's exclusion of the audience loss has no matching step in E.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.