PrepTest 154, Section 2, Question 17
Consultant: The mayor shouldn't adopt her rival's controversial(36 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AZvi should continue(35 more words not shown)
- BJoni should not(32 more words not shown)
- CDespite his current(27 more words not shown)
- DAlvin should not(36 more words not shown)
- EElisa should call(42 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why shouldn't the mayor take a good idea from a rival? Maybe the proposal is bad, or maybe accepting it makes her look weak. Let's see what the consultant actually argues.
The consultant considers both outcomes. If the proposal succeeds, the mayor risks boosting her rival's credibility: it was the rival's idea that solved the problem. If it fails, the mayor gets blamed for wasting time on it. From the political perspective the consultant is using, success and failure each carry a downside for the mayor. We don't have to decide whether political advantage should outweigh solving the budget problem.
What we’re looking for
The parallel question asks us to match this reasoning: don't take an action because either of its two possible outcomes creates a problem for you. Keep both branches. Two independent reasons against an action aren't necessarily the same as explaining why things go badly whether it succeeds or fails.
Working the answers
- A
This gives us a chain: stop practicing, risk losing ground, and then be unprepared for the recital. The recommendation is to keep practicing to avoid that chain. The consultant instead considers success and failure after the same proposed action and finds a downside in each. A doesn't say continuing practice creates a problem whether Zvi improves or fails to improve.
- B
This is closer. It recommends against an action, and it does describe a downside of success: publishers may ostracize Joni. Don't overlook that part.
But the first reason predicts that the book is unlikely to be taken seriously by most readers. It doesn't describe a separate harmful consequence if the attempt fails, paired with a harmful consequence if it succeeds. The consultant explicitly branches into two outcomes of adopting the proposal and identifies the cost of each. D reproduces that structure more closely.
- C
This offers two reasons to keep the collection: its expected increase in monetary value and its sentimental value. Those are separate benefits of keeping it, not bad consequences under two alternative outcomes of selling it. The fact that both arguments say someone shouldn't do something doesn't make their reasoning parallel.
- DCorrect
Submitting the paper corresponds to adopting the proposal. Acceptance corresponds to success, and it creates the risk of missing the publisher's deadline, just as a successful proposal creates the risk of strengthening the rival. Rejection corresponds to failure, and it costs Alvin confidence, just as a failed proposal costs the mayor through public blame.
Both arguments recommend against the action by attaching a downside to each outcome. The details differ, but the relationships line up.
- E
This compares two different choices. Waiting risks losing the spot; calling now offers the benefit of negotiating the price. That supports choosing one action over the other. The consultant doesn't compare the benefits of adopting now with the costs of waiting. The consultant argues against adopting because both success and failure can hurt the mayor.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.