QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: We should play more popular music.
REASONING: We can either play more popular music or go out of business. We shouldn’t go out of business.
ANALYSIS: This argument presents two possibilities and argues that one is unacceptable. Therefore we should choose the other.
This isn’t technically a good argument. It could be that both possibilities are unacceptable, and one is less unacceptable than others.
But it’s a pretty good argument, because it’s implied that playing popular music is less unacceptable.
Parallel reasoning questions are long. Several of the answers are structurally different from the stimulus. You can eliminate those first. Anything with three elements or more than two choices is out.
- We don’t know if cost is the greatest concern. This isn’t as clear cut as the stimulus.
- CORRECT. This argument chooses one possibility by showing that another is unacceptable. It repeats the error from the stimulus: the argument hasn’t shown that we can make curtains fast enough. Maybe neither option is acceptable. However, it’s implied that curtain can be made faster.
- This makes a different flaw. It’s possible that curtains could provide privacy, but valences could be used at the same time for other benefits. The structure is different, the stimulus didn’t say we could choose both options.
- This is a complex argument. That alone should tell you that it’s incorrect. The stimulus had a simple structure.
- This introduces far too many elements to parallel the stimulus.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly