LR Question 24 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: A smaller number of short documentary films than of …
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: A higher proportion of full-length science-fiction films than of short documentary films are commercially successful.
REASONING: There are more short documentary films than there are science-fiction films, but a smaller number of short documentary films than full-length science-fiction films are commercially successful.
ANALYSIS: This argument looks at absolute numbers of a thing and uses it to infer proportions. There are more short documentaries, but more full-length science fiction films are successful. That means that full-length science fiction films must be more successful, on average, because otherwise fewer full-length science fiction films would be successful than short documentary films.
The parallel argument will be something like this. There are a number of items of X class, and more items of Y class. However, the number of X class items with Z characteristic is higher than the number of Y class items with Z characteristic. The conclusion must be that X class items have Z characteristic at a higher proportion than Y class items do.
___________
- This argument is missing the part about whether there are more large Victorian apartments or small modern apartments.
- CORRECT. This is the same reasoning. There are more modern apartments, but a higher number of Victorian apartments have freestanding bathtubs. This means that a higher proportion of Victorian apartments have freestanding bathtubs.
- This argument is making a conclusion about the absolute number of apartments in each category with freestanding bathtubs, not the proportion. This distinguishes it from the stimulus.
- This argument is making a conclusion about how many apartments of each category exist. The conclusion in the stimulus is about the relative proportions, so it’s not the same.
- In this answer, the number of modern apartments is less than the number of Victorian apartments, and the number of modern apartments with freestanding bathtubs is also smaller. We can’t use this to conclude anything about the proportions.
Recap: The question begins with “A smaller number of short documentary films than of “. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Parallel questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Parallel Reasoning Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Parallel Reasoning questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers parallel reasoning questions.
I’m usually really good at these kinds of questions but that’s only because I assume that the structure (placement of premises and conclusion) are the same in the ACs as it is in the stimulus. It seemed to me that both B and C were saying the same thing, but the first sentence of C matched very closely with how the premise presented itself (smaller number rather than bigger, though both are the same thing).
This taught me that the ACs in parallel reasoning do not have to adhere to the same structure! I didn’t realize that the first sentence was actually the conclusion! Will have to get in the habit of identifying conclusions even in ACs :((((((
this question IS EATING MY BRAIN , I use the same logic for most parallel and parallel flaw.
I took this question to follow this structure , Less x then y are z
More x then y
Thus , more y then x = c
eliminated A – talk about x twice in intro and it also says in conclusion “smaller”
left B
left C
eliminated D BC more “small modern apt” which is Y and not X . also structure looked off in general .
eliminated E bc it says thus , fewer modern apts, should say more modern apts.
dont understand how c is wrong
Let’s break it down. The key structure in this argument is, like you said:
1. There are more X than Y overall.
2. But fewer X than Y meet a specific criterion (Z).
3. Therefore, a higher proportion of Y than X meet the criterion.
Note that the conclusion of the stimulus relates to the proportion. Whereas with C, this is the breakdown:
Premise: There are more X (modern) than Y (Victorian), but a higher proportion of Y than X have Z (freestanding bathtubs).
Conclusion (first sentence): Less X than Y have Z.
So C makes a conclusion about the absolute number of apartments with freestanding bathtubs, while the stimulus (and B) conclude the proportion. That’s the critical difference. Let me know if you have further questions!
I think there was a mistake in the explanation for Answer B.
There are more Victorian apartments than modern apartments with freestanding bathtubs, even though there are more modern apartments than large Victorian apartments.
Therefore, there is a higher proportion of large Victorian apartments than of modern apartments with freestanding bathtubs.
The trick here is that we have to identify the reversal made in the answer choice does not contradict the original stimulus structure.
If we look at the stimulus from the point of view of sci-fi movies, then it would be something like the following:
There are more full-length sci-fi films that are commercially successful than short docs, even though there are more short docs than sci-fi films. Therefore there is a higher proportion of sci-fi films that are commercially successful than short docs.
This is still the same as the original and matches our option B.
Hi! You’re correct that the explanation wrongly swapped the two apartment types. I have fixed this now. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
Note: The reasoning still remains the same, the explanation just had the two apartment types swapped (which is now fixed).