Self-study
Support Cities with healthy economies typically have plenty of job openings. ██████ ████ ███████████████ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██ █ ████ ████ ███████████████ ███████████
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.
Argument Structure
This question showcases the value of LSAT-specific preparation. The stimulus is relatively straightforward in its language, its structure, and its subject matter – most people could read it in English and think “yeah I get it.” But the language in the answer choices is much more complex – evaluating them based on their English-language meaning is exceptionally difficult.
That’s where the LSAT training comes in. The stimulus provides us a clear, simple structure, featuring tons of elements we’re explicitly trained to recognize: it’s a loosey-goosey conditional chain featuring a few most(ish) claims and a value judgment. Evaluating the answer choices isn’t about comprehending their full meaning, it’s about plugging individual concepts into the structure we’ve built, matching all the elements we flagged in the stimulus.
Premise 1 is a
Premise 1: Healthy economies typically have Jobs.
Premise 2: Tech cities tend to have Healthy economies.
________
Conclusion: If you want Jobs, you should go to a Tech city.
This structure doesn’t match our valid argument forms. The language is so wishy-washy that it’s not really a clean example of a conditional chain, or of combining “most” claims, or of an argument that inappropriately crosses the is-ought gap. But clean example or not, if you’re focused on the those elements, the structure is pretty straightforward to pin down.
So again, our job in the answer choices is to look for a wishy-washy conditional chain, linking 3 concepts together using 2 most(ish) claims, and then drawing a normative conclusion that says “if you want the last thing in the chain, you should do the first thing in the chain.”
25.
The reasoning in which one ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Older antiques are ███████ ███ ████ █████████ ███████ ███████ █████████ ████████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ █████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████████
(A)’s first sentence is a most(ish) claim linking Old stuff to Valuable stuff. So far so good:
Premise 1: Old antiques are typically Valuable.
If you’re paying close attention, (A) should fail on the mismatch between the concepts “older antiques” and “antiques that have had their ages authenticated.” My daughter’s age was authenticated by the government – she is two. Authenticated age =/= Old age.
Premise 2: Dealers tend to Authenticate.
The difference between Authenticated and Old really is the kicker, because the conclusion is a match if you treat them like they’re the same concept:
Conclusion: If you want Valuable, you should buy from Dealers.
b
Antique dealers who ████████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ █████ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ████████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██████████████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ █████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████████
The tempting reading of (B) probably involves a conditional chain running from Dealers to Authentication to Value:
Premise 1: Dealers typically Authenticate
Premise 2: Authenticated stuff tends to be Valuable
_______
Conclusion: If you’re looking for Valuable stuff, you should buy from a Dealer.
If (B) matched the above structure, it would be right. But it doesn’t quite match – mainly because of Premise 1, which actually says:
Premise 1: Dealers who Authenticate typically have Plenty for sale.
Notice that “typically” links the combined concept of [things that are Dealers and also Authenticators] to this random non sequitur concept of having Plenty for sale. We don’t know how many Dealers actually Authenticate – maybe only 1 dealer does and the rest don’t bother.
c
Antiques that have ███ █████ ████ █████████████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ █████ ███████ ███████ █████████ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██████████████ █████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ████████ █████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████████
This matches our structure piece for piece, including all the elements we’ve been trained to recognize:
Premise 1: Authenticated antiques tend to be Valuable.
Premise 2: Dealers typically carry Authenticated antiques.
________
Conclusion: If you want Valuable, you should buy from a Dealer.
d
Many antique collectors ████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████████ ███ ███ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████████████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ █████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████████
(D) is wrong for myriad reasons, so here’s a realistic picture of what should stand out on a first read.
Right from the jump, (D) is sus because of the phrase “Many antique collectors know…” Many is too weak to match a most(ish) claim, and the concept of knowledge is new.
The first premise is also too weak: “Dealers can Authenticate” is different from “Dealers typically Authenticate.”
On the flipside, the “always” in the second sentence is too strong – to match, we want “Authenticated antiques tend to be most Valuable.”
Lastly, and most conclusively, the conclusion is a descriptive claim (about what people do in fact) rather than a normative claim (about what people should do).
(D) doesn’t say collectors should buy from dealers – it says they do.
e
Many antiques increase ██ █████ ████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████████████ ██ ███████ ████████ █████ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████████ █████████ ███████ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████████
(E) should fail your shallow dip on the word “many,” which is too weak to match the most(ish) claims in our stimulus. Like literally, that should be it. (E) is dead.
If you need more, just note that (E)’s conclusion links Dealers to Value:
If you want Value, you should buy from Dealers
To match our stimulus, then, (E) wants a chain from Dealers to Authentication to Value. Its second sentence, though, just gives us a direct link from Dealers to Value:
“dealers tend to have plenty of Valuable antiques”