PrepTest 158, Section 2, Question 25
If you complete 24 graduate credits and a(40 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(13 more words not shown)
- AIf the mayor(45 more words not shown)
- BIf I see(37 more words not shown)
- CIf the government(34 more words not shown)
- DBooks at Falling(43 more words not shown)
- EIf Doria owes(46 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If Roger had finished the thesis too, he'd be eligible. The rule guarantees that result when the credits and the thesis are both complete. But he isn't eligible, and we know the credits are complete. The missing piece must be the thesis.
This reasoning works. We don't have to assume that these are the only possible ways to qualify for a master's degree. We only need the guarantee stated here: meeting both conditions is enough. If Roger had met both, the reported lack of eligibility would conflict with that guarantee.
What we’re looking for
For the parallel question, keep three roles straight. Completing the credits is one condition, completing the thesis is the second, and eligibility is the result. The argument gives us the first condition and denies the result, so it rules out the second condition. Look for two things that must work together to trigger the stated guarantee, not either of two alternatives that works on its own.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
City council approval takes the role of Roger's completed credits. Mayoral approval takes the role of the thesis. The gardens being able to open this week takes the role of eligibility for the degree.
Both approvals together would guarantee that the gardens could open. They can't open, despite council approval, so the mayor's approval must be missing. That is the same move: one part of a sufficient combination is present, the promised result is absent, and the other part is therefore absent.
- B
Seeing a science fiction movie leads to one of two reactions: love or hate. Ruling out hate leaves love. That starts with one condition producing alternative outcomes. The original starts with two conditions together producing one outcome, then uses the absence of that outcome to identify a missing condition. The roles don't match.
- C
Either the government or another party buying the plant would be enough to improve the economy. Since the economy didn't improve, C rules out both possible buyers. In the original, the credits alone aren't given as enough, and neither is the thesis alone. We need both together, with one already known to be present. C's “or” changes the actual relationship.
- D
Being on sale requires a book to be used or a paperback. The answer starts with a book on sale, rules out paperback, and identifies it as used. This works through two alternative ways to meet a requirement. Roger's argument instead rules out one missing part of a combination that would guarantee the result. D has neither that combined guarantee nor the absent result.
- E
Excessive debt leads to a choice between getting a better-paying job and declaring bankruptcy. Again, those are alternatives, not two conditions that jointly guarantee another outcome. E also says Doria doesn't want bankruptcy, which doesn't establish that she won't declare it. The original gives an actual absence of eligibility, not someone's preference about the result.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.