Logical reasoning PrepTest 136 · Section 4 · Question 13

Incorrect. This argument never reaches a conclusion about whether one should climb mountains, so it's not parallel.

Incorrect. This argument recommends a course of action, so it isn't parallel.

Incorrect. Very close! However, this answer brings up the small rewards, not the catastrophic consequences, so it's not parallel.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
The risk of meltdown in new nuclear plants is small, but the consequences are "absolutely catastrophic," so they shouldn't be built.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument falls into a common method of reasoning seen on the LSAT—balancing the risks, rewards, costs, and consequences of an action. Here, the risk of something bad is very small, but the consequence of it happening is "absolutely catastrophic" (and there's no mention of rewards or costs)—so we should find an answer that similarly balances the very low risk of something with the very high costs of it and recommends against it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer recommends against bungee jumping because the risk of injury is very low, but those injuries are "so extreme," so it's parallel to the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument in a Parallel Reasoning question uses a common Method of Reasoning, identify the relevant elements in it and find an answer that matches them. And don't forget to tie your analysis into the conclusion! Make sure that your first thought is to whether it matches, as that's where most answers go wrong.

Incorrect. This answer balances the effort to wear a seatbelt with the risk of injury, not the catastrophic nature of any consequences, so it's out of scope.