PT146.S1.Q18 > Explanation

Show analysis

Office worker: I have two equally important projects that remain undone. The first one is late already, and if I devote time to finishing it, then I won't have time to finish the second one before its deadline. Admittedly, there's no guarantee that I can finish the second project on time even if I devote all of my time to it, but I should nonetheless devote all of my time to the second one.

Argument Summary And Rule Anticipation

Our poor office worker faces a true dilemma – a clean choice between option A and option B. (Well okay technically they could do a little of both, but they never take that middle option seriously so we’re gonna put it aside.)

Because our argument is about choosing between two options, its broad structure is therefore quite clear: we’re gonna learn some contextual facts describing the situation, and then receive a conclusion that picks one of those options.

Then our job will be to provide a general rule that says “When [this or that contextual fact] is in place, you gotta [pick whatever option the worker picked].”

Fact 1: Two projects. Both unfinished, both equal priority.
Fact 2: Project 1 is late.
Fact 3: If I finish Project 1, Project 2 will be late.
Conclusion: I should devote all of my time to Project 2.

(Notice how we skipped over the “there’s no guarantee” stuff? That’s because it’s a concession, and therefore unlikely to serve as an active premise in the argument.)

So we’re just looking for a principle that plucks out one of the above facts and says “Oh snap [Fact ##] is in the mix? Well jeez you for sure have to devote all your time to Project 2 then.”

There are many technically-relevant versions of this, but the most common-sense one is something like:

Anticipated Rule: If one project is already late and the other isn’t late yet, you should devote all your time to the not-late one.

Note: As you evaluate the stimulus, you should also pick up on the value judgment leap across the is-ought gap. You can’t jump from descriptive premises about how things are to normative conclusions about how things ought to be. In a PSAr question, this means our principle will take us from one side to the other – something like “When things [are] this way, they [ought to be] that way.” This dynamic turns out not to be a difference-maker in this particular question, because every answer choice provides a bridging principle. (Verify that for yourself! It’s good practice!)

18.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the office worker's reasoning?

Question Type

PSA - find the rule

Objective: Pseudo Sufficient Assumption / Find The Rule Questions

These questions present a bunch of principles in the answer choices and ask us to apply them up to the stimulus in an effort to justify the argument. They're akin to Strengthen questions, where overstrong language is often fine and we’re hoping to bridge any gaps in the argument we can find.

PSAr questions tend to follow routine patterns, and our approach can therefore be similarly routine. First, it’s critical to identify the argument’s conclusion and the premise(s) that seek to support it. In a shockingly high proportion of PSAr questions, the correct answer will take the form: Premise → Conclusion.

Like in normal strengthen questions, though, it’s also important to note any common flaws you see, or (especially) subtle jumps from one concept to another (e.g. from talking about athletes to talking about professional athletes). Correct answers that address weaknesses like these are common as well.

It is better to focus one's time on a single project than to split one's time between two projects.

(A) helps us decide to focus on one project or the other instead of splitting time between both. Okay… which one, though?!?

We need a principle that points us to Project 2.

It is better to finish one of two projects than to risk failing to finish both projects.

(B) would be an excellent answer if we added “on time” in a couple places:

It is better to finish one of two projects on time than to risk failing to finish both projects on time.

That would be fantastic. Without those additions, though, (B) becomes a principle about finishing projects at all.

We’re not given any information about which project is closer to being finished – if anything, the reasonable assumption would be that Project 1 is probably closer. Project 1 it is!

11%

It is better to first finish those projects that must be done than to interrupt them with projects that are merely optional.

The distinction between optional and mandatory is unmoored from the facts in the stimulus. If there were some solid reason to think Project 2 was mandatory and Project 1 was optional, we’d be in business, but we just don’t have that anywhere. In fact, the only information we do have is that they’re equal priority.

It is better not to worry about having failed to finish a project on time than to allow such worry to interfere with finishing a competing project on time.

The “gut check” reason to dislike (D) is a lot more clear than the deep-dive reason. Like actually, the best way to choose between (D) and (E) is probably to get vaguely weirded out by (D)’s whole “worrying” thing – which is a new and different concept than we’ve been talking about in the stimulus – then convince yourself (E) is right and pick it.

On its most tempting reading, (D) says something like “Don’t worry about that first project, and really don’t get so caught up on the first project that you also fail to complete the second project on time.” And conversationally, there’s a connotative link between “don’t worry about it” and “don’t devote time to it.”

But conversational connotations?!? What is this, some undergrad English seminar? This is the LSAT, where worrying means worrying – nothing more.

Breaking (D) down explicitly, it says we have two choices, and Choice 1 is better than Choice 2:

Choice 1: Don’t worry about Project 1 having been late.
Choice 2: Worry about Project 1 being late so much that it interferes with turning Project 2 in on time.

Okay, (D), I got you. Let’s free ourselves from worry about Project 1 having been late. Deeeep breath in…hold…deeeep exhale. Feel your heart chakra expand into the universe.

We can now approach the choice between Project 1 and Project 2 from a place of inner peace. Cool. We still need some principle to help us decide between them. Should we do the one that’s closer to the finish line? Is it better to turn in two half-completed projects than to focus on one or the other?

(D) tells us “do not let worry be the principle that determines your choice,” but it fails to supply an actual principle we can use.

12%

It is better to attempt to finish a project on time than to attempt to finish a late project that does not have higher priority.

Greetings, person who just clicked the little light bulb! You’re probably looking for this:

(E) doesn’t say Project 1 is lower priority – it says it’s not higher priority.

If I’m not taller than you, we can still be the same height. If skiing is not cooler than snowboarding, they might still be equally cool.

With that in mind, (E) hits the nail on the head: If you’re choosing between a late project and a project you could potentially finish on time (of equal or higher priority), go for the one you might finish on time.

72%

PrepTest 146 - Section 1 - Question 18

Question explanation

Live takes

Ask a tutor

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.

Confirm action