PrepTest 127

Incorrect. This answer's conclusion has a "probably" in it, making it less certain than the stimulus's conclusion and thus incorrect.

Incorrect. Similar to (A), the conclusion of this argument is of moderate strength ("probably"), not definite like the stimulus ("will not win"), so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. This argument doesn't have a timeline issue, and it's also valid, so it can't be correct.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A station hasn't won the ratings war in 10 years, and it hasn't changed to broader its appeal, whereas others have. Therefore, it won't win this year.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument bases a definite prediction about the future on what has happened in the past. While this is a Parallel Reasoning question, that doesn't mean it can't be flawed, and basing a prediction on what has happened in the past is a common flaw on the LSAT.

When there's a flaw in a Parallel Reasoning question, the correct answer needs to have that same flaw, so we can be on the lookout for this Temporal flaw.

Answer Explanation:
This argument uses a trend from the past to make a definite prediction about the future, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When a Parallel Reasoning question has flawed logic, the correct answer will need to match that flaw. You can use that to help you narrow your choices down or even select the right answer.

Incorrect. This argument is valid—if being a trained swimmer is necessary to being a lifeguard, then any lifeguards will be trained swimmers. That's just a restatement of the condition.