Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 2 · Question 16

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Uptown Apartments' owners think renovating would cost more than the increase in rent it would let them charge, so they won't do it. But it'll increase the rent they can charge in their nearby apartments, too, so they should do it.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument falls into a common type of argument that shows up on the LSAT—a cost/benefit analysis. The opposing point—the owners of the apartments—undergo one cost/benefit analysis that has them making a decision not to take an action. The author then rebuts this with a cost/benefit analysis taking other considerations into account that leads to the conclusion the action should be done. Let's find an answer that has a similar two-level cost/benefit analysis here, with the second rebutting the first.

Answer Explanation:
John did a cost/benefit analysis and determined knee surgery wasn't worth it. The author then does a cost/benefit analysis bringing in a new consideration (the ability to exercise again) and comes to the opposite conclusion. This is parallel to the stimulus!

Key Takeaway:
When common types or methods of reasoning show up in Parallel Reasoning questions, pay attention! Spotting the dueling cost/benefit analyses here (a common method of reasoning on the exam) made it a lot easier and faster to find (A) as the correct answer.

Incorrect. Two issues here. First, the rebuttal talks about the same consideration—the fishing season. To match up, the rebuttal should deal with the non-fishing season. Second, the conclusion isn't a direct recommendation to do something, but rather a statement that the decision made by the opposing point is wrong.

Incorrect. This answer balances risk with cost, which is different than going through two cost/benefit analyses.

Incorrect. This answer is about an unexpected effect of a problem/cause, not a cost/benefit analysis (let alone two competing ones).

Incorrect. There is arguably one cost/benefit analysis here (though that's stretching it), but there certainly aren't two that are competing with each other.