LSAT 155 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q19

LR Question 19 Explanation

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.

___________

1. CORRECT. This exactly matches the reasoning, and is what we prephrased above.
2. 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.
3. This is not correct. It introduces too many new concepts such as alternating between two solutions, where the original argument was much simpler.
4. The original argument doesn’t say that not matching paint is “almost as good”. It says that matching paint is pointless.
5. 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.