LR Question 25 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Jordan: If a business invests the money necessary to…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
ARGUMENTS: Jordan points out that business will be damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Terry points out a way that environmental controls could be implemented without harming any particular business. Terry offers a solution.
ANALYSIS: Structure is very important here. Jordan is pessimistic and shows how things we go wrong either way. If the companies help the environment then they will be hurt. But if then don’t help the environment then there will be lots of pollution.
Terry is a problem solver. He says that if consumers demand change then we can help the environment without causing problems.
So the structure is: Jordan is whiny. You can’t have good without bad. Terry shows us how we can have a good thing without a bad thing.
___________
- CORRECT. Jordan’s part is good: something bad happens either way. Terry offers a solution to one of the problems.
- Here Jordan describes how something can be good either way. And Terry just argues with his evidence.
- Jordan does point out that taxes and social reform are mutually exclusive. Terry doesn’t offer a solution. He just tells us what will happen if we don’t do anything.
- Here Terry is just warning about a possible bad consequence.
- Here Terry is just telling us which of two bad options we should choose.
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.
Apparently this is statistically lowest LR success rate from PowerScore, though likely inflated by how skippable it is (huge answer prompt at end of long section). It sounds kinda parallel reasoning, but I didn’t see a great way to diagram.
Prompt:
If environmentally conscious lose market share. If not pollute.
Response: If consumers (third factor) put pressure, pain is suffered equally (‘none in particular.. especially hurt’)
A offered two possible states. One state is resolved by a novel suggestion like in the question stem.
B just says this two state dichotomy is wrong.
C doesn’t really suggest something. Do nothing approach advances neither position
D doesn’t offer two possible states. Reply offers the second possible state. No resolution is made
E Offers two states. Position suggested is one of the existing ones, not a novel suggestion.
^ No idea if this is a reasonable approach. E was a bit tempting, but I favored A over it because the solution was novel in A rather than going with one of the two existing choices in E.
I kinda expected something more clinical here, but I’m happy to see it was more of a feels question. Idk if how I approached it makes sense or is flawed, but at least it worked.
Your reasoning is reasonable! It is a Parallel Reasoning question, but diagramming isn’t always the best way to go with these. And you’re right that E is the only other tempting answer, and novel solution is a good way to think about it. Another way to eliminate E is that Terry’s not reasoning why one of the options isn’t as bad as Jordan makes it out to be/giving an actual solution to one of the problems. He’s saying one scenario isn’t really a problem, but if we get the condition that could lead to needing to do one of the two scenarios, one scenario is better than the other.