PrepTest 150, Section 3, Question 23
Fine short story writers are unlikely to become(59 more words not shown)
The reasoning in which one(10 more words not shown)
- AEngineers can never(42 more words not shown)
- BHistorians who write(39 more words not shown)
- CGood painters cannot(21 more words not shown)
- DBecause of the(34 more words not shown)
- EThose who excel(40 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would being good at short stories make someone unlikely to become a great novelist? My first guess is that the jobs need different skills. That's where the argument goes: one calls for weaving small details together, the other for handling larger matters, and few writers can do both well.
Those skills aren't logically incompatible. The argument explicitly allows a few writers to have both. Its claim is about an unlikely crossover, not an impossible one.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, keep the whole explanation: success in one field requires one ability, success in another requires a different ability, and few people possess both. Therefore, people who excel in the first field are unlikely to excel in the second. We need the reason for the limited crossover as well as the conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns two desired properties of one product: a comfortable, safe car supposedly needs weight, while fuel efficiency usually requires lightness. It concludes that engineers can never combine the properties. The original instead concerns a person succeeding in two fields because few people have both sets of skills. It allows some crossover; A's 'never' conclusion doesn't. Neither the roles nor the strength of the conclusion matches.
- B
The conclusion initially looks promising: historians who do one kind of work are unlikely to succeed at another. But the explanation is about their willingness to spend time on archival research. They don't think people with their gifts should do that work. We aren't told that the two tasks require different abilities that rarely occur together. Someone could have both abilities and simply decline to use one. That's a different reason for limited crossover.
- C
Here one feature of being a painter—bias toward one's own style—supposedly prevents the objectivity needed to be a scholar. It claims painters cannot become good scholars. The original doesn't say mastering one ability prevents having the other; it says possessing both is rare. C replaces rare overlap with an alleged disqualifying feature and makes the conclusion absolute.
- D
This explains why few people will succeed in one profession. Becoming a medical specialist requires knowledge, and few people have the motivation to acquire it. There isn't a group already successful in a first field whose chance of succeeding in a second is being assessed. We need two domains and the rarity of combining their required abilities, not a single demanding career.
- ECorrect
One sport takes one set of specialized talents; another takes a different set. Few people have both sets, so excellence in one is unlikely to be accompanied by excellence in the other. The sports replace the two kinds of writing, their talents replace the two writing abilities, and the rarity of possessing both supports the same unlikely-crossover conclusion.
Imagine applying this reasoning to tennis and golf: if each requires a different specialized ability and few players possess both, we would expect relatively few excellent tennis players to be excellent golfers too. The argument doesn't need either sport to make the other impossible. It needs the combination of abilities to be uncommon.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.