PrepTest 154, Section 1, Question 10
If Thompson appeals to moderates, his most ardent(50 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AIf Chen supports(39 more words not shown)
- BIf the company(54 more words not shown)
- CIf money is(47 more words not shown)
- DIf the city(66 more words not shown)
- EIf Madsen decides(44 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Thompson loses either way. Appealing to moderates costs him his strongest supporters; not appealing to moderates sends those moderates to his opponent. Both routes leave him short of the votes he needs.
There isn't a third option between appealing to moderates and not appealing to them. Since both possibilities lead to a loss, the conclusion follows. We don't need to object to a sound argument just because many other questions contain flawed ones.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, preserve that whole structure: do something and get a particular result; don't do it and get that same result; conclude that the result is unavoidable. The two branches can have different explanations. Here, one loses votes through supporters deserting and the other through moderates voting for the opponent. What matters is that both establish the result named in the conclusion.
Working the answers
- A
The two choices produce opposite outcomes: support the center and it gets built; oppose it and it doesn't. That makes the outcome depend on Chen's decision. Our argument gives Thompson the same losing outcome whichever decision he makes. A therefore misses the feature that makes the original conclusion follow.
- BCorrect
Relocating corresponds to appealing to moderates; staying corresponds to not appealing to them. If the company moves, employees unwilling to move leave. If it stays, employees unhappy with the location leave. Those are different reasons for the same result: losing employees.
Moving and staying cover the two possibilities, just as appealing and not appealing do. So the company loses employees no matter what it decides, matching Thompson's unavoidable election loss.
- C
This gives us a chain along one route: no road funding leads to uncontrolled potholes, which leads to replacing the councilors. Where is the other route showing what happens if the council does provide funding? Without that branch, we don't have the same result whether the council funds repairs or doesn't. C instead urges one decision to avoid a bad consequence.
- D
A small tax increase and a large tax increase aren't the same as an increase and no increase. Both described options improve the park, but the council could approve no increase at all. The two branches therefore don't cover the possibilities the way Thompson's appeal-or-don't-appeal branches do.
- E
This is closer: whether Madsen supports or opposes the mall, an effective spokesperson will be available. It doesn't matter that the spokesperson could be a different person; the shared result is still having an effective spokesperson.
But the conclusion changes the result to the project's success. Having a spokesperson doesn't establish that the mall will succeed regardless of Madsen's decision. The original stays with the exact result both branches establish—losing the election. E would be a better match if it concluded only that an effective spokesperson would be available either way.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.