PrepTest 158, Section 4, Question 5
The railway authority inspector who recently thoroughly checked(35 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(14 more words not shown)
- AMy pottery instructor(37 more words not shown)
- BGardner, a noted(43 more words not shown)
- CThe engineer hired(37 more words not shown)
- DThe reporter who(59 more words not shown)
- EThe snowblower salesperson(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Could both reports be accurate? The inspector recently found the tracks in good condition. Maybe a storm damaged them afterward. Maybe someone vandalized them. “Recently” doesn't guarantee that nothing has changed since the inspection.
We can also question how much confidence the lack of bias deserves. A person can be unbiased and still make a mistake. So the inspector's lack of bias doesn't settle every possible concern about reliability.
What we’re looking for
Still, we need to match the argument's reasoning, not find an answer that repairs it. The author favors a careful, unbiased inspector over a reporter who makes the opposite claim. The conclusion is that we should be suspicious of the reporter's claim. Look for those two conflicting accounts and the same reason for favoring one of them.
Working the answers
- A
There is only one outside source here: the pottery instructor. The speaker applies the instructor's advice to their own behavior and predicts avoiding injury. We would need a second person making a conflicting claim, followed by a reason to doubt that person. A never supplies that conflict.
- BCorrect
Gardner plays the inspector's role: a knowledgeable person who carefully examined the relevant object and has no vested interest in the dispute. Gardner says the bones aren't old enough to be dinosaur bones, just as the inspector says the tracks are in good condition.
Penwick plays the reporter's role by claiming the opposite: these are dinosaur bones. The conclusion then tells us to be skeptical of Penwick because Gardner's careful, unbiased assessment conflicts with that claim. Both the two-source structure and the reason for preferring one source match.
- C
The careful examination sounds familiar, but where is the competing account? This argument accepts an engineer's assessment without introducing anyone who says the bridge is unsafe. To match, we would need another person's contrary claim and a conclusion that the engineer's account gives us reason to doubt it.
- D
Here we accept a reporter's claim despite a possible source of bias, on the theory that eventual exposure of the truth keeps that bias in check. The original relies on the preferred source having no bias. D also lacks the two conflicting assessments that the original weighs against each other.
- E
This rejects a salesperson's claim because that salesperson is biased. The original doesn't establish that the reporter is biased. It doubts the reporter because a different, unbiased person gave a conflicting report. Distrusting a biased speaker and preferring one speaker over another are different structures.
More Parallel Reasoning questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Parallel Reasoning questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.