#8 - Various mid-fourteenth-century European writers show an

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

With this Parallel question, as with many of this type, abstraction can make it easier to find the answer choice with mirror reasoning. Two sources of possible evidence (writers and statutes) are mentioned, and something is absent from both of them. Therefore, even though many people think this activity occurred, it is probably unlikely. Basically (abstractly), the absence of something according to research shows that common public opinion is likely inaccurate.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Two sources are mentioned from which something (a huge fire) is absent. Therefore, although people think it happened, it probably did not. As in the stimulus, research shows that common public opinion is likely inaccurate.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is entirely different because the two sources conflict and the argument concerns which source is better. Its reasoning does not match that of the stimulus, where the two sources agree.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice mentions newspapers to tempt you, but there really is no aspect of the stimulus's argument present in the reasoning of this argument. There is no research into sources and there is no debunking of public opinion.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice draws an inference from something printed in the paper. Although it says "did not explicitly say" it does use something in the paper to draw a conclusion. The stimulus uses something absent from the sources to form an opinion. Also, the conclusion of this answer is entirely different from the stimulus's conclusion.

Answer choice (E): Like answer choice (B), this answer choice also discusses which source is better when the two disagree. The two sources in the stimulus, again, both contain the same absence.

[salmach]

While I was contemplating picking A as my answer, it seemed to be a very strong choice, mainly due to the conclusion. In the stimulus the author concludes that "contrary to what is sometimes claimed, at that time playing cards was not yet "common" in Europe". For me, this translated to "it could have existed, but was not yet common". Compare this to answer choice A which states "Therefore, there probably was no such fire".

Am I totally not thinking along the same lines? Looking at it now, I see how question A could possibly work, perhaps with the indication of "probably was no fire" but to me common still seems to indicate that it could have existed compared to not existing at all. Am I mistaking common to be synonymous with popular? Would appreciate some guidance

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Salmach,

Thanks for the question and for sharing your analysis.

The conclusion actually hinges on the likelihood of something that was claimed to be true/have happened.

In other words, the issue is not how "common" playing cards were; rather the issue is the totality of the statement:

• It is sometimes claimed that playing cards were common in Europe at the time.

Match this up with the parallel statement:

• it has been rumored that there was a fire in the port.

The parts with matching color are structurally analogous or play similar roles.

Thus, the parallel conclusions hinge on the following:

• It is likely that playing cards were NOT common in Europe at the time.
• It is probable that there was NO fire.

Does this help?

[Noodles93]

Hi! I would like to see a more detailed comparison between A & C. I put A, but for some reason talked myself out of it before submitting the drill I think the language "neither nor" seemed too similar to the stimulus, i.e. too easy, and thought this may be an LSAT trick. Thanks!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi Noodles93!

It's understandable that you might have ultimately moved away from (A) because the neither/nor construction seemed to similar and thus might have been a trick.

In the end, though, (A) matches up pretty well with the stimulus. As the administrator notes, it can be helpful to abstract what was stated in the stimulus. It's saying that a certain phenomenon (playing cards) was absent from two sources (writers and statutes). From this, the author of the stimulus concludes that the phenomenon was likely not prevalent. Answer choice (A) follows a similar pattern--it mentions that a particular phenomenon (a huge fire) was not mentioned in two sources (newspapers and television), and concludes that there "probably was no such fire."

Answer choice (C) doesn't really follow this pattern at all. Presumably, if we're trying to match things up, the relevant phenomenon would again be the fire mentioned in this answer choice. However, (C) doesn't introduce two sources of information, and it additionally doesn't make a conclusion that the fire likely did not exist. Finally, it doesn't conclude that the fire probably didn't exist on the grounds that two sources of information fail to mention the fire. In those ways, answer choice (C) doesn't parallel what is going on in the stimulus.