LSAT and Law School Admissions Forum

Get expert LSAT preparation and law school admissions advice from PowerScore Test Preparation.

 Administrator
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 8919
  • Joined: Feb 02, 2011
|
#23228
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
  • Posts: 12
  • Joined: Aug 11, 2017
|
#38178
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 :hmm:
User avatar
 Jonathan Evans
PowerScore Staff
  • PowerScore Staff
  • Posts: 726
  • Joined: Jun 09, 2016
|
#38317
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?

Get the most out of your LSAT Prep Plus subscription.

Analyze and track your performance with our Testing and Analytics Package.