PrepTest 105

[lcid:3517] Prep Test 105 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S2 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

No one in the Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: D

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Valid

Question Type

Parallel Reasoning Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

The French Department doesn’t let members (including Alban) teach more than 1 intro class There are no intro language classes offered next term Alban is teaching 2 French classes Therefore - They can’t both be intro classes

Answer Anticipation

As with all Parallel Reasoning questions, we should be reading for logical elements that we can then match in the answer choices. Here, there’s a lot of conditional language, but the terms don’t overlap or build together, so we’re better off treating them as general principles. The first principle establishes that no one in the French department is allowed to teach more than 1 intro class per term. The second is that no intro language classes are being offered next term (they’re all advanced). We also learn a bit about a specific case - Professor Alban. She’s a member of the French department, and she is teaching two French classes next semester. How does that overlap with the principles? Well, she’s a member of the French department, so the first principle applies, allowing us to infer that she won’t be teaching two intro courses. And the second applies, as well, as she’s teaching language classes. That principle let’s us conclude that she’s not teaching any intro language classes. Those two conclusions overlap in that both guarantee that the two French classes she’s teaching can’t both be intro classes, though the second principle goes a step further and lets us conclude that she’s teaching none. What does the argument actually conclude? That not both are intro classes. That’s independently supported by both principles/premises, so let’s find an answer that similarly has two principles that each, by themselves, would lead to the conclusion. (Bonus points if one of the principles actually justifies a stronger conclusion as well.)

Answer choices

  1. A
    The Morrison Building will Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    There’s only one principle here - that a building fully occupied by May has the new tax rate applied to it - so it isn’t parallel to the stimulus.
  2. B
    The revised tax code Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited
    The first principle here justifies the conclusion, but the second principle is about just one section of the revised code that doesn’t apply to the Norton building, so that principle leaves open the possibility that another section might. Since the two principles here don’t independently justify the conclusion, this answer is incorrect.
  3. C
    All property on Overton Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    This argument is flawed in that it assumes the reassessment will show that the property owned by Elnor will have gone up in value. It also has only one principle that it relies on, not two, so we can rule this answer out.
  4. D
    New buildings that include Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D matches the stem
    There’s a building with a large public space that was recently completed. The first principle applies since it’s a building with a public space, allowing us to conclude that it’s exempt from city taxes for two years - that more than covers the one year in the conclusion. And the second principle applies since it’s a new building in Alton, allowing us to conclude that it’s exempt from city taxes for five years - again, more than enough to cover next year. We have two principles that each independently justify the conclusion, so this argument follows the same pattern as the stimulus.
  5. E
    Since according to recent Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    This argument has two principles that justify the conclusion, but they’re not independent - they both need to be true simultaneously for the conclusion to be supported. As such, this answer isn’t parallel to the stimulus where each premise was, by itself, enough to justify the conclusion.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Why E over B 0 replies

    Started by johnawhitev

View all discussions Start a discussion