QUESTION TEXT: No projects that involve historical restorations were granted…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: At least some of Stein and Sapin’s projects were not granted permits this month.
REASONING: Some of Stein and Sapin’s projects are historical restorations. No historical restorations were given permits this month.
ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. Some things in one group (Stein’s projects) are also part of another group (projects that did not receive permits.)
___________
- This is a good argument but it doesn’t conclude that some things in one group are also part of another group.
- This is a bad argument. A positive trend could actually be discouraging. We could have been expecting an even larger positive trend and thus be discouraged that the trend was lower than expectations.
- This isn’t quite the same. The stimulus was certain that some of Stein’s projects had no permits. This argument just says it’s “likely” that some musicians will be paid late. D is a better answer.
- CORRECT. Yes. Some things from one group (Hannah Barker’s films) are also part of another group (films that did not receive enthusiastic reviews) because no films received enthusiastic reviews this season.
- This is a bad argument. We can’t make a conclusion by combining two “some” statements. It may be that only one park is old and only one is beautiful. They might not be the same park.
Recap: The question begins with “No projects that involve historical restorations were granted”. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
Leave a Reply