PrepTest 139

Incorrect. This answer isn't about the difficulty of removing these defects, but rather the difficulty of living with them, so this answer doesn't follow the same principle as the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer isn't about the increased difficulty of changing those last few aspects of the personality. While it does have a cost/benefit analysis ("likely to make one worse off"), it doesn't have the additional wrinkle from the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
More weeds = Less productive garden
Pulling all weeds is painstaking and not worth the productivity gain
Therefore - You shouldn't try to weed all weeds

Answer Anticipation:
For this question, we need to understand the argument, generate a principle underlying it, and then see which answer follows that principle. That's a lot, so there's no time to waste!

Let's start with the argument. It brings up a general relationship between weeds and garden productivity—more weeds, less productive. That might suggest that one should pull all weeds, but the stimulus actually argues against that, stating some should be left. Why? Because the difficulty of removing those last weeds isn't worth the benefit of it. It's important to note here that the stimulus isn't recommending against weeding, but rather against putting in the effort to get all weeds, and our principle should reflect that:

When the benefit of completely eliminating something isn't worth the extraordinary effort, that thing shouldn't be completely eliminated.

This is a pretty standard principle underlying an argument on the LSAT—it's essentially a cost/benefit analysis over weeding. However, as we noted, there is a subtle addition in that it discusses the costs/benefits of doing something completely, stating that, at a certain point, the marginal benefit isn't worth the cost. The answer should follow the larger pattern but also feature this addition.

Answer Explanation:
This answer follows the same principle as the stimulus. It recommends against doing something completely (removing each imperfection, much like removing each weed) because the increased difficulty in getting rid of those last ones isn't worth the effort. This is a cost/benefit analysis looking at the marginal costs and benefits of the last few items, which was the principle we identified in the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
The LSAT likes to take common patterns and tweak them just a bit. When you notice that a common pattern applies in a given question, see if there is anything unique or different about this specific application of it. If you note something, there's a good chance it'll help you find the correct answer!

Incorrect. This answer recommends against doing something to completion because it's impossible, not because the marginal benefit isn't worth the cost.

Incorrect. This answer mentions not removing specific imperfections because they'll make a problem worse, which is a completely different principle from the stimulus.