PrepTest 151, Section 2, Question 19
Munroe was elected in a landslide.(43 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AThe Park Street(37 more words not shown)
- BThe Park Street(41 more words not shown)
- CNo one can(38 more words not shown)
- DThe Park Street(45 more words not shown)
- EThe Park Street(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Munroe won, and winning required both a change in voters' sentiments and a well-run campaign. So the change in sentiment must have happened.
That works. We aren't guessing what usually helps someone win. The premise says election was impossible without both conditions, and we know the election happened. Either required condition can therefore be established. Notice that we don't have to say Munroe personally caused the change in sentiment; we only need to say it occurred.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel, keep three roles straight: the result happened; that result required two things; therefore one of those things happened. The subject matter can change; those are the relationships to match.
Working the answers
- A
The cafe's closing could play the role of Munroe's election, but the rest doesn't match. A rules out dissatisfied customers and jumps to strong competition as the cause. It never gives a rule requiring both of those conditions for closure. There could also be another cause, such as the owner dying. The original establishes a required condition from an observed result; A picks a cause without establishing that the alternatives are exhausted.
- BCorrect
This may look premature when it jumps straight from the cafe's closing to strong competition. Keep reading: the final clause supplies the rule that makes the conclusion follow.
The cafe's closure matches Munroe's election. Closing required both strong competition and unsatisfied customers, just as election required both shifted sentiments and a good campaign. Strong competition matches the one required condition established in the conclusion. The other requirement also follows, but neither argument needs to conclude both. B puts the conclusion before the rule; that different order doesn't change the reasoning.
- C
Competition is presented as a requirement for closure, but the conclusion denies that dissatisfied customers caused the closure. That doesn't follow from competition being required: dissatisfaction could still have contributed alongside competition. The original doesn't rule out one cause because another condition was needed. It uses an observed outcome to establish one of its two stated requirements.
- D
Having no reason to remain open under two conditions doesn't say that closing requires those conditions. The cafe might close for another reason. D also concludes only that the two conditions are possible, whereas the original concludes that a required condition definitely occurred. Both the rule's direction and the strength of the conclusion differ.
- E
Here the requirements are for staying open, not closing. We are then told both requirements were missing, so the cafe couldn't have stayed open. That reasons from missing requirements to the impossibility of an outcome. The original starts with an outcome that did occur and concludes that one of its requirements was present. E can reason correctly without matching that structure.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.