LR Question 13 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Pollution is a problem wherever there are people who…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Indifference ➞ nature’s balance harmed
REASONING: Indifference ➞ pollution ➞ nature’s balance harmed
ANALYSIS: This is a good argument. It takes two conditional statements, joins them together, and draws a conclusion from the combined statement.
Note: on my own page I’d draw something like: I ➞ P ➞ NB. But I use full words in the explanations to avoid confusing people.
To parallel this argument, skim through the answers and look for one where the sufficient condition of a statement is on the left of the conclusion, and the necessary condition of the other statement is on the right. Once you’re down to the two most probable, draw them.
All but one of the answers have conditional statements, so this is the best way to filter. You can also draw everything, but it’s slower.
___________
- CORRECT. This matches:
Statements: chocolate ➞ calories ➞ fattening
Conclusion: chocolate ➞ fattening - Both of these statements lead to the same necessary condition.
Statements:
chocolate ➞ calories
fattening ➞ calories - Both of these statements start from the same sufficient condition.
Statements:
calories ➞ chocolate
calories ➞ fattening - This is close, but it’s an incorrect reversal.
Statements: chocolate ➞ calories ➞ fattening
Conclusion: fattening ➞ chocolate - This has a “many” in it, so it doesn’t have two conditional statements.
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.
Hi Graeme,
For (A) to be correct, it seems that the LSAC would need to be using “wherever” to introduce a sufficient condition (people indifferent to their environment) and then a necessary condition (pollution). I was working under the expectation that words like “whenever” and “wherever” always introduced sufficient conditions. Can you explain under what circumstances that is not the case or, at the very least, why it is not the case here?
Thank you,
David
No, that’s not correct here. In both cases wherever introduces a sufficient condition. The second wherever introduced pollution as the sufficient condition for harm to nature’s balance.
Indeed indicators will always have the same logical effect.
Note: This is an old comment but I wanted to clarify the point.