#14 - The fact that politicians in a certain country are

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

In this stimulus, the author examines the motivation behind the decision to eliminate government supported scholarships. Politicians in that country wish to reduce spending. But, says the author, they could more effectively reduce if they cut back on military spending. Thus, the author concludes, the decision to cut scholarships is not fully explained by the desire to cut spending.

Looking through the answer choices, we may notice that with regard to this slightly more complicated argument, Doubling the Conclusion would not be effective, since all of the answer choices present similar-sounding conclusions—each choice concludes that a full explanation (of something) is lacking.

The test of abstraction will provide a more effective approach; in the abstract, the author is saying this: basically, their actions are not completely explained by their goals, because there are more effective means of achieving that goal.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice (E) is the only choice which passes the Test of Abstraction. Thelma’s theatrical acting is not fully explained by her goal to be famous, because there are more effective means of achieving that goal (in this case, through writing and directing).

Incorrect answer choice (A) has the right conclusion, but the supporting premise is different: her actions are not completely explained by her (financial) situation; they are consistent with her actions during a different situation.

Incorrect answer choice (B) also has a similar conclusion, but, again, fails the premise test. Here the argument is basically as follows: his performance is not fully explained by his (job) situation; others in similar situations perform differently.

Incorrect answer choice (C) shares the same conclusion as the other choices, that a full explanation of something is lacking, but in this case, the argument is quite different from that in the stimulus: the fact that those two can’t work together is not fully explained by different styles; given a different approach, they could have achieved a better result.

Incorrect answer choice (D) also has the right conclusion, and does deal with goals, but the argument here also fails to parallel that in the stimulus” In this case, Roger’s cat adoptions are not fully explained by his goal of more companionship; he would have adopted less if there had been other options for the cats. This one started out well, but took a wrong turn, like the other wrong answer choices, all presenting different types of supporting premises.

[mariahenain]

What is the best indicator to apply the Test of Abstraction? Is it more of a last resort, or is there something that should prompt me to use it?

Thank you!

[EL16]

I have the same question as Maria above. How did you know to abstract the answer choice? I was looking for conditional reasoning like "if" in the premise and totally missed this question.

Thanks,
Elana

[AthenaDalton]

Elana and Maria,

You can successfully use the Test of Abstraction in any parallel reasoning question. There's no harm in applying it.

However, abstraction can be a little more time-consuming than approaches like Double the Conclusion or the Elemental Attack. If you see an opportunity to compare parallel conclusions through Double the Conclusion, start there (look for language like "if X occurs, Y will probably occur" or "since X did not occur, Y may or may not occur"). Alternately, if you see that the argument can be easily diagrammed, sketch out a quick diagram in the margin of your book.

If you're not sure how to tackle a parallel reasoning question, defaulting to the Test of Abstraction is a good approach.

Good luck studying!

[jessamynlockard]

I considered both C and E contenders and ending up choosing C because I was thinking of my abstraction in terms of "other solutions", and communication is a solution to not working well together. Would you mind going into more detail on the nuances of language that show our paraphrase should have been more like yours and why we should have rejected C in favor of E.

[Adam Tyson]

I'll give it a try, Jessamyn! The stimulus is telling us that the politicians were "trying" to accomplish something, and they went about it a certain way, but there was a better option. That "trying" thing is a pretty key concept here, the effort or goal or motivation. When paralleling this stimulus, I should be looking for someone who is trying to accomplish something, too, but doesn't make the best choice in pursuit of that goal.

In answer C, what are Sallie and Jim trying to do? Some might say they are trying to work together better, but this answer actually never says that. Maybe they don't give a darn about working well? Maybe they are jut trying to avoid each other after that awkward night at the office St. Patrick's Day party? Answer C is missing that important active language that was in the stimulus, the "trying" something.

That's where the prephrase should come from - your goal doesn't explain your choice because there was a better choice available. There needs to be a goal, and a choice, and a better option than that choice. Since E has all of that, and C does not have it all, that makes E the better answer. You got the "other solutions" aspect of it down, but when that wasn't enough to differentiate your two contenders, the next step would be to look for another element in the stimulus and see which answer does a better job of capturing all of the key pieces. It should never be a subjective judgment, but one based on the text.

When stuck between contenders, focus on what makes the different! The similarities won't help you, but the differences will make one better!

[LSATStudent2023]

Hey Team Powerscore,

I had answer choices D and E as my two contenders, but I selected answer choice D because of the conditional reasoning in the stimulus with the indicator word "if" for the sufficient condition. Since the correct answer doesn't seem to have a clear conditional indicator and lacks conditional reasoning in the premise, does this mean that the conditional reasoning structure did not need to be paralleled in the correct answer?

Does this hold true for all parallel reasoning questions in that the correct answer does not need to always exactly match the structure of reasoning?

Thanks!

[katehos]

Hi LSATStudent2023!

In this case, just because the word "if" (or any other conditional indicator) is present, it does not mean the stimulus relied on conditional reasoning to come to its conclusion. Here, the author does not rely on conditional reasoning to come to the conclusion that the goal of reducing spending does not fully explain the choice to eliminate all government-supported scholarship programs.

If you were to diagram the sentence using the word "if", you would get something that looks like: Cut Back on Military Spending Government Spending Could Have Been Reduced More (contrapositive Government Spending Could Have Been Reduced More Cut Back on Military Spending). But does this conditional actually link somehow to the conclusion? Not really, or at least not through the use of conditional reasoning. Instead, the word "if" here is being used to introduce a hypothetically better alternative, which makes it hard to use the stated goal to entirely explain the actions of the politicians.

Since no line of conditional reasoning is actually present in the stimulus, it is not imperative that the correct answer choice use conditional reasoning! Instead, you want to focus on ensuring the correct answer choice follows the abstraction of the argument mentioned in previous posts!

I hope this helps
Kate