QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The owners should make the improvements even though they are not directly profitable.
REASONING: The improvements would also increase rents in nearby buildings also owned by the owners.
ANALYSIS: This may be a good argument. We’re not told if the total increase in profits is enough to cover the cost of the improvements.
In terms of structure, the argument introduces an outside factor (more rents at nearby properties) that boosts the argument for doing the improvements.
- CORRECT. This gives John two reasons to have the painful surgery: he will have a slight long term reduction in pain, and he can exercise again. It’s similar to the stimulus in that we don’t know how much John cares about exercising.
- This hardly makes sense. The company is using the boats for fishing during the fishing season. Why would they want to use them for other purposes?
If it had said they could use the boats for other purposes during the ‘non-fishing season’ then this would have been the right answer.
- This sounds like a reasonable argument. Better to spend $175 than risk having your car ruined. But this is nothing like the stimulus, which introduced a second factor in favor of a course of action.
- This is a good argument, but it’s not recommending that anyone should get dental problems. The original argument made a recommendation.
- We have no idea what’s in the long term interest of the fruit company. Maybe people will like the fruit, but they won’t buy it often and it will be unprofitable.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly