#21 - A local marsh would need to be drained before the

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[vlad]

Could you please explain why the correct answer is B and not C?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi vlad,

This is Parallel Reasoning question involving a principle. The premises are discussing the effect of marsh draining on groundwater (potentially messing up something while building something) and wanting an expert's opinion before taking such an action. The principle roughly abstracted is we shouldn't (opinion) do a thing until we make an assessment about the safety of doing that thing. The conclusion is let's not do that thing until we determine that it is safe to do. Personally, I think this is a decent argument. I see no obvious flaws. So let's compare Answer Choice (B) to Answer Option (C) using these observations.

Answer Choice (B) is really strong. Defective products mirror messing up something as it's built described in the stimulus. Also, my abstract principle works well with let's not put these products out on the market until we know it is safe. Finally, that conclusion of let's not release them because we do not know about their safety parallel my stimulus's conclusion well too. That's my winner and that's my right answer.

Now let's turn to Answer Option (C). It starts off well enough speaking of a safety check in the first sentence, but then in the second sentence, we go off the rails. It seems the paperwork got messed up so the check is not complete. That's nothing like our opinion abstraction of the stimulus. Then the conclusion goes on to say that they are not going do the report because it is incomplete. Again, no similarity to my conclusion. This is really failing at least two of my tests and maybe even the third. It's a loser. Strike it off your answer choices.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[Etsevdos]

Is B also a better answer because "can" is suggests some uncertainty (similar to our prompts "often"). C is conditional language suggesting a guarantee. Therefore, the degree of certainty on the effects differs?

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, Etsevdos! Nice work, well done. The conditional issue in C is unlike what we saw in the stimulus, while the "can" matches nicely with the "often" in the stimulus. Not a perfect match, but the best one of the bunch, and that makes it a winner. Good job!

[younghoon27]

I got this questions correct but I thought A and B were similar is A wrong because it has more to do with cost and not a test?

[Luke Haqq]

Hi younghoon27!

Glad to hear you ultimately chose the right answer! But I'd be happy to speak to why answer choice (B) is better than (A).

To understand why, try abstracting / concisely rewording what the stimulus is saying. This can be broken down into a handful of pieces:

(1) Precautionary measures are needed to assess costs before taking the next step
(2) Such precautionary measures have not yet been taken
(3) Therefore, the next step (of building in that location) should not be taken

Next, look for a similar abstraction in the answer choices. We can see this in answer (B):

(1) Precautionary measures are needed to assess costs before taking the next step ("Defective products can cost an appliance manufacturer millions of dollars because of product recalls and lawsuits.")
(2) Such precautionary measures have not yet been taken ("Yova Corporation’s new line of appliances has not yet been thoroughly tested for defects.")
(3) Therefore, the next step should not be taken ("Thus, Yova should not bring its new line to market at this time.")

This parallel structure is missing in answer choice (A). That answer choice states, "A new highway cannot be built in the lake district unless an environmental impact assessment is first carried out. An environmental impact assessment would cost more than the projected economic benefit of the highway. The proposal for a new highway in the lake district should therefore be rejected." This reasoning is simply stating that a cost-benefit analysis indicates that the proposal should be rejected; there is no cost-benefit analysis in the stimulus (it mentions the "cost" of needing to drain the marsh, but it doesn't base its conclusion purely on a cost-benefit analysis), which is why this answer is ultimately incorrect for a parallel the reasoning type of question. Answer choice (B), by contrast, much more neatly parallels the argumentation employed in the stimulus.

[clbrogesr]

Hi - could someone talk a bit more about this question type. I have been studying for the LSAT for a while now, and have not encountered it yet, at least not that I remember. I am more than familiar with Parallel Reasoning questions, but I don't remember this specific variety.

I approached the question as a parallel reasoning question, which led me to C. My thought was that the stimulus says 1 (draining the marsh) is necessary for 2 (building the complex), that we have not done 1 yet, and so that we should not do 2 until 1. All of that seemed sound, and AC C uses the same structure.

Was the mistake that I approached this problem looking for structural similarities in the argument, rather than looking more abstractly for the principles around safety and risk that inform the stimulus, and answer choice B? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

This type of Parallel Reasoning question that involves a Principle is fairly common, clbrogesr, and you should be on the lookout for it. "Which of the following illustrates a principle most similar to the principle illustrated by the above argument" is another version of that. When faced with this type of question, your first attack should be to identify what the underlying principle in the stimulus was. What broad rule did the argument apply? What guideline did the author follow? Strip away the details and find the abstract structure that got the author from their premises to their conclusion.

In this case, that might be something like "if there's something that could be important and you haven't fully studied it, you should hold off taking any potentially harmful action until you know more." Your job when you get to the answers is to find one that applied that same rule to a different set of circumstances.

Answer C follows a different rule altogether. Rather than "don't do the potentially harmful thing until we know more," it's "the work isn't complete so don't release the report yet." Releasing the report is not a potentially harmful thing, and the warning isn't about gathering more information but about finishing what has been started. Using the "Test of Abstraction" approach from the standard set of elements for Parallel Reasoning should help you to eliminate that answer on those grounds.