PrepTest 157, Section 2, Question 8
Buyer: As a buyer for a large chain(48 more words not shown)
The pattern of reasoning in(17 more words not shown)
- AA snowflake will(32 more words not shown)
- BA stuffed animal,(35 more words not shown)
- CA sidewalk is(31 more words not shown)
- DA poetic translation(41 more words not shown)
- EAn assembly may(44 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A beautiful dress can still be too expensive to buy.
The buyer requires two things: the garment must be fashionable, and its price must suit the customers. Peruka's dress clears the first hurdle but fails the second. Since both are required, one success doesn't rescue one failure. The buyer won't buy it.
That reasoning works. But don't turn the requirements into a guarantee: a fashionable, affordable garment hasn't necessarily been promised a purchase. We only know that a garment missing either feature is ruled out.
What we’re looking for
We're looking for the same structure elsewhere: two requirements for an outcome; one met and one not met; therefore, no outcome. The pieces might appear in a different order or use completely different subjects. Match what each piece does, not whether the wording sounds familiar.
Working the answers
- A
The first rule gives a way to guarantee melting: a warm place together with no insulating protection. It doesn't say those are requirements for melting. Once we learn the snowflake has insulation, we no longer have the stated guarantee—but that alone doesn't prove it won't melt. To match the buyer, the rule would need to say melting requires both features. The dress argument rules out an outcome by failing a requirement; A rules it out merely because one stated route to it isn't available.
- BCorrect
Passing inspection takes the place of buying the dress. Being free of sharp edges corresponds to being fashionable; being completely sealed corresponds to being affordable. Both features are required for the outcome.
The hippo has no sharp edges, just as the dress is fashionable. But the hippo isn't completely sealed, just as the dress isn't affordable. Each item passes one requirement and fails the other. Therefore, the hippo won't pass inspection, just as the buyer won't buy the dress. All the roles and the direction of the reasoning match.
- C
Fully graded edges and no sizable bumps are presented as enough to establish accessibility. The sidewalk has both features, so the argument concludes that it is accessible. Our buyer instead starts with requirements, finds that one is missing, and rules the outcome out. C gives two features present and a positive conclusion.
- D
The opening does give two requirements for an accurate translation. But the next sentence says both are met, whereas the dress meets only one. D then treats meeting the requirements as enough to establish accuracy. The original doesn't make that move; it uses a failed requirement to reject the dress.
- E
Again, the opening gives two requirements, so the beginning looks promising. But we only establish that the quorum requirement is met. Instead of telling us that the motion failed and concluding that a meeting cannot be called, E conditionally permits a meeting if the motion passes.
That differs in two ways: no second requirement is established as failed, and meeting both requirements is treated as enough to permit the outcome. The buyer makes neither move. A match would give us the failed vote as a fact and then rule out calling the meeting.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.