PrepTest 152, Section 2, Question 9
If the winner of a promotional contest is(58 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(6 more words not shown)
- AThe family members(14 more words not shown)
- BThe manner in(16 more words not shown)
- CThe contest entry(11 more words not shown)
- DThe rules of(11 more words not shown)
- EThe number of(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
What if most entries arrived in the first two days?
Ninety percent of winners coming from that early group sounds suspicious only if we know how large the group was. If 90 percent of the entries arrived then, a fair lottery could produce a winner pool with the same pattern. Equal chances for individuals don't require equal numbers of winners from time periods containing different numbers of entrants.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to strengthen the accusation of unfairness. I'd look for evidence that the entries were spread evenly across the registration period. Then the concentration of winners in the first two days would be much harder to explain by the concentration of entries.
Working the answers
- A
Excluding the organizer's family doesn't show that early entrants received an unfair advantage. It might remove one concern about favoritism, but the argument's concern is the concentration of winners by entry date. A supplies no evidence of unequal chances among those who entered.
- B
Announcing the selection procedure doesn't tell us whether it gave everyone an equal chance or whether the organizers followed it. A process can be publicized and still be unfair in practice. B adds transparency, not evidence supporting this particular accusation.
- CCorrect
With entries arriving at a consistent rate, the first two days contain only about two-thirtieths of the entry pool, yet supply 90 percent of the winners. That makes the early group heavily overrepresented and defeats my initial explanation that almost everyone entered early.
A fair draw can produce uneven results by chance, so C doesn't prove wrongdoing with mathematical certainty. It makes the result much more suspicious by comparing the winners with the actual distribution of entrants. That is the comparison the argument was missing.
- D
Posting the rules where people can see them doesn't establish that the draw obeyed those rules. Nor does it show that the rules promised an unfair preference for early entries. Their visibility doesn't supply evidence about whether all entrants had an equal chance.
- E
More entrants than expected tells us the total was surprising, not how the entries were spread over time. A large pool could be concentrated in the first two days or distributed throughout the month. Either is compatible with E, so it doesn't address the alternative explanation for the winner pattern.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.