QUESTION TEXT: Although the slightest difference in shades of paint is …
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It is useless to try to match the paint colour when repainting only part of the interior of a house.
REASONING: The paint colour fades over time, so even if it matches the other colour initially, it will not match after a year or so.
ANALYSIS: Here, the author is making a judgment about whether a certain action is worth taking. They say that having unmatched paint colours is noticeable, but matching the paint colour is futile because it won’t stay matched for more than a year or so.
The correct answer will probably follow this structure. A certain action that produces a positive effect is pointless because its effects are not permanent.
___________
- CORRECT. This exactly matches the reasoning, and is what we prephrased above.
- This answer doesn’t exactly match. It’s missing the positive effect part – we don’t know that getting old parts has an initial benefit that fades over time.
- This is not correct. It introduces too many new concepts such as alternating between two solutions, where the original argument was much simpler.
- The original argument doesn’t say that not matching paint is “almost as good”. It says that matching paint is pointless.
- This is close, but it’s missing the “not permanent” part. The idea that people won’t notice is not the same reasoning as the idea that the effect will fade.
Recap: The question begins with “Although the slightest difference in shades of paint is “. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
Leave a Reply