PrepTest 151, Section 3, Question 25
Keeler wanted the institute to receive bad publicity.(38 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AThe only people(42 more words not shown)
- BCarter and Whitequill(39 more words not shown)
- COther than Helms(39 more words not shown)
- DWhen the bridge(48 more words not shown)
- ECutter and Rengo(38 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Keeler had a motive and the opportunity. That makes him a sensible suspect. Does it mean he must have done it?
Greene was also in a position to tell the press. We must accept that Greene had no reason to do so, but that doesn't make acting without a motive impossible. He might have disclosed the information by accident. Suspicion and certainty are different things.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, keep the pieces straight: only two people could have performed an act that occurred; one had a motive, the other didn't; therefore, the one with the motive must have done it. The answer can rearrange those pieces, but it needs to preserve their jobs. In particular, having a motive isn't the same as being able to perform the act.
Working the answers
- A
Johnson and Ringwold are the only people with a reason to write the letter, not the only people in a position to write it. Both have motives, whereas Keeler has a motive and Greene does not. The choice then singles out Ringwold because she has written anonymous letters before. That past behavior has no matching role in the original argument. Their denials don't restore the missing difference in motives.
- B
Again, the initial restriction concerns who has a motive, not who could have done the act. Both Carter and Whitequill have motives. Whitequill's fear of exposure then supplies a reason he might refrain despite his motive. That's different from Greene having no reason to act in the first place. B reaches a definite conclusion about a completed act, but its premises eliminate one candidate in a different way.
- CCorrect
Helms and Lapinski are the only people who had access to the equipment when the tampering occurred, matching Keeler and Greene being the only people in a position to tell the press. The equipment was tampered with, just as the press was notified. Helms had a reason to do it and Lapinski did not, matching Keeler's motive and Greene's lack of one. The conclusion is that Helms must have done it.
Every part lines up, including the certainty of the conclusion. The fact that C begins with access and introduces the motive later doesn't matter; the same pieces support the same kind of inference.
- D
Fleming and Solano being the only capable designers does match the original restriction on who could act. But Fleming's motive concerns taking credit for a design, not creating it. The argument uses the absence of a credit claim to reject Fleming as the designer: if it were his, he would have a strong reason to announce that. It never gives us one person with a motive to design the bridge and another without one. The extra step from expected credit-taking to actual authorship changes the reasoning.
- E
This predicts a future selection instead of identifying who performed an act that already happened. Rengo's experience and connections are reasons he might win the job; they aren't a motive contrasted with Cutter's lack of one. Being the only serious candidates also differs from being the only people capable of acting. Finally, E says Rengo will probably get the job, while the original concludes Keeler must have notified the press. Several central pieces have changed.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.