Self-study
Conclusion The local radio station will not win the regional ratings race this year. ██ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████ ███ █████ ████████ ██████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ███████████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ████████████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ██████████████
Objective: Parallel Questions
Parallel questions have a highly regimented theory and approach – even if your core logical intuitions are very strong, following a routine process specifically built around the LSAT’s unique patterns will dramatically reduce the time and mental energy required to identify the correct answer. So review these lessons. They’re important.
In short, though, our approach will be to develop an abstract model of the stimulus’ argument, preserving the structure but not the subject matter, then take a shallow dip into the answer choices looking for structural mismatches. Usually that suffices to identify the correct answer, but sometimes we’ll need a deep dive to distinguish between the (usually just two) answer choices that remain after our shallow dip.
Boiling Down The Argument
Look how long the stimulus is compared to the answer choices – we’re gonna need to boil off a lot of stuff, keeping only the bones of our argument.
The argument’s conclusion comes first, in the form of a prediction: the local radio station isn’t gonna win this year. The argument then shares a few supporting facts that are quite reasonable: the station has been placing poorly for a while now, and there are a few obvious avenues of improvement that it simply hasn’t pursued.
This argument isn’t valid, because no argument attempting to predict the future based on facts from the past can be, but it’s also not completely unreasonable. It’s an argument by analogy, asking us to see the future the same way we see the past.
So here’s a super-distilled abstract summary: Past events give us some reason to think the future will look a certain way, therefore the future will look that way.
24.
The reasoning in which one ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Every swan I ████ ████ ███ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ██████
(A) uses a philosophically distinct logical structure called “inductive reasoning,” which just means taking a collection of observed facts (look at all these white swans) and forming a general conclusion (I bet all swans are white). Arguments predicting future outcomes are categorized differently, and that’s partly what the testwriters had in mind when writing this answer choice.
But whatever. (A) also features a mismatch in the likelihood asserted by its conclusion. The stimulus says the station will not win, while (A) concludes all swans are probably white. Mismatches in likelihood matter a lot in Parallel questions.
b
A fair coin ███ ██████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ███ █████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ████
(B) arguably survives the shallow dip. It makes a prediction about the future based on facts about the past, and our stimulus does both those things.
But (B)’s inference is blatantly unreasonable. Thinking a fair coin will come up heads because it has done so before is literally a textbook statistical fallacy. That goes well beyond any weakness our stimulus has as a result of trying to predict the future.
Also, and more concretely, (B) features a mismatch in the likelihood asserted by its conclusion. The stimulus says the station will not win, while (B) concludes the next flip will probably be heads. Mismatches in likelihood matter a lot in Parallel questions.
c
All lions are ████████ █████████ ████ ███ █████ █████ ██████ █████ ██ █ ██████ ████
(C) displays perfectly straightforward, valid reasoning. It doesn’t try to predict the future, it just establishes a rule (all lions are mammals), then applies that rule to an individual (Leo is a lion, so he’s a mammal too).
d
Recently stock prices ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ █████████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██████ ██████ ████
This makes a firm prediction about the future based on reasonable (or at least not blatantly unreasonable) facts about the past. (D)’s conclusion matches the certainty featured in the stimulus (“they will be lower”), and because stock prices (unlike the fair coin from (B)) fluctuate according to the fickle whims of millions of human investors, it’s at least mildly reasonable to believe they follow stable patterns.
If you’re not convinced that the logic in (D) is more reasonable than the logic in (B), which is perhaps fair given that “past performance is not indicative of future results” is an extremely common mantra in the business world, note that the difference in likelihood alone suffices to distinguish (D) from both (A) and (B).
e
Only trained swimmers ███ ███████████ ██ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ████████
Unlike our stimulus, (E) displays valid reasoning. Seeing this might be tricky because of how the first clause is phrased: “only trained swimmers are lifeguards” means “all lifeguards are trained swimmers.” If we take that as an established premise (which it is), the next lifeguard at the local pool absolutely will be a trained swimmer.
This isn’t scattered facts about the past reasonably supporting a prediction about the future, though. This is a universal truth about all lifeguards across space and time supporting a prediction about the future.