PrepTest 156

[lcid:3723] Prep Test 156 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S4 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Different cultures have independently Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: A

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

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Strategy Overview

Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument Diagrammable?
If yes, diagram out premises and conclusion. Note key identifiable characteristics of argument (How many premises? Quantifiers? Ands/ors? Contrapositives? Transitives?) Can also convert specific terms in diagram to As, Bs, Cs, Ds, etc.
Eliminate an answer choice as soon as you notice it doesn't possess a key identifiable characteristic the passage possesses Diagram remaining until you find a matching diagram
If not, paraphrase the method of reasoning
Keep in mind common methods of reasoning, like argument by analogy Select answer choice that uses the same method of reasoning

Answer Anticipation

Parallel Reasoning questions task us with finding the answer choice with the same argumentative structure as the argument in the passage. There are two ways we can look beyond the subject matter of the passage to uncover its underlying structure. One route is to diagram the premises and conclusions (if at least some of them are "if-then," "most," or "some" statements). Alternatively, we can describe the argumentative strategy (if the premises and conclusion are not "if-then," "most," or "some" statements). Although the conclusion uses the "if-denying" keyword "unless," the premise is not an "if-then" statement. So, we are better off attempting to describe the argumentative structure. Many test-takers like to use the "Kirkland" strategy to describe an argument's structure rather than its content. To use the "Kirkland" strategy, we'll simply remove any reference to the subject matter and replace it with a generic descriptor (much like Costco replaces brand-named items with generic "Kirkland" versions of those products). So, let's replace "cultures" with "sources" and "ingesting honey daily promotes vigor and longevity" with the generic "X." Once we do that, the Kirkland version of this argument is, "Different sources have independently concluded X. So, unless there's strong evidence that contradicts X, we should assume X is true." Now, let's see which answer choice matches this generic description of the argument. We can also expedite our review of the answer choices if we take a conclusion-out approach. We should compare each conclusion to the Kirkland version of our conclusion: "unless there's strong evidence that contradicts X, we should assume X is true." If an answer choice's conclusion doesn't resemble that, we can eliminate it without bothering with the answer choice's premises.

Answer choices

  1. A
    Three engineers have inspected Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A matches the stem

    This conclusion resembles the claim that "unless there's strong evidence that contradicts X, we should assume X is true." So, let's take a closer look at this answer choice to see if it matches the full Kirkland version of the passage ("Different sources have independently concluded X. So, unless there's strong evidence that contradicts X, we should assume X is true.")

    Checking out the premises, we'll see that "Three engineers have inspected the bridge, and each has independently concluded that it is safe" matches the Kirkland premise ("Different sources have independently concluded X.") Double-checking the conclusion, it asserts that we should assume the bridge is safe unless new evidence shows that it's not safe, just like the Kirkland version of our argument.

    So, the premise and conclusion of this answer choice match those of the Kirkland argument. So, this is the correct answer. Don't waste any time reading or analyzing the remaining answer choices. Select this and move on to the next question.

  2. B
    Numerous studies have concluded Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B is not credited

    This conclusion doesn't match the Kirkland version of the conclusion. Rather than assert something like "unless there's strong evidence that contradicts X, we should assume X is true," this conclusion says that "most people should be encouraged to exercise with weights." This conclusion doesn't say something like "unless there's strong evidence that says exercising with weights is harmful." Moreover, this conclusion doesn't assert that we should assume that something is true. Instead, it says we should encourage people to do something. For these reasons, we can cross off (B) without reviewing the premises.

  3. C
    The members of an Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited

    This conclusion doesn't quite match the Kirkland version of the conclusion. Rather than assert something like "unless there's strong evidence that contradicts X," this conclusion says, "unless these scientists are working from questionable assumptions." Working from questionable assumptions is one reason the scientists' conclusion could be flawed, but it's far more specific than the Kirkland version of that statement. Moreover, scientists working from questionable assumptions doesn't mean their conclusion isn't true — it just means the scientists' support is flawed. For these reasons, we can eliminate (C) without reviewing the premises.

  4. D
    Three theater critics, none Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited

    This conclusion doesn't match the Kirkland version of the conclusion. Rather than assert something like "we should assume X is true," this conclusion says, "it is unlikely that the play will be successful." So, this conclusion doesn't say we should assume a claim is true; it says something will probably fail. Perhaps this would match the passage's argument if the critics had claimed that the play probably won't succeed. But the critics don't say that. They just say the play isn't worth the price of admission. For these reasons, we can cross off (D).

  5. E
    Several different physicians examined Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited

    This conclusion resembles the claim that "unless there's strong evidence that contradicts X, we should assume X is true." So, let's take a closer look at this one to see if it matches the full Kirkland version of the passage ("Different sources have independently concluded X. So, unless there's strong evidence that contradicts X, we should assume X is true.")

    However, once we read the premise, we'll see that it doesn't match the Kirkland version of the argument. Instead of saying that different sources independently concluded that Janet is healthy, this premise says that the sources couldn't agree on Janet's diagnosis. Since the premise of this answer choice doesn't match the Kirkland premise, we can cross (E) off.

Discussion

No threads yet—be the first to ask a question or share an approach.

View all discussions Start a discussion