LR Question 17 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Situation: A physical therapist wants her patients to derive…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: If the therapist meets the first objective (getting her patients to enjoy developing skills), it will lead to the second objective (they will practice more).
ANALYSIS: This is a very interesting question. It seems more difficult than it actually is, because you may have not seen anything exactly like it before. But we are basically acting like the analysis is the conclusion to each argument, and seeing if it makes sense.
Essentially, you have to ask yourself: will the first goal naturally lead to the second goal? In the stimulus, we see that it does. Patients who enjoy developing skills will spend more time practicing them. The correct answer will be one where this doesn’t work.
___________
- The analysis applies here. Students who understand the principles will apply them more easily.
- The analysis applies here. Satisfied customers will need to call less.
- The analysis applies here. If books aren’t lost or stolen, they are more likely to be returned on time.
- CORRECT. The analysis doesn’t apply. Building a new warehouse doesn’t inherently lead to the employees helping plan how to use the old one.
- The analysis applies here. If the concert series varies their repertoire, new people may become interested in attending.
Recap: The question begins with “Situation: A physical therapist wants her patients to derive”. It is a Parallel Reasoning question. Learn how to master LSAT Parallel questions on the LSAT Logical Reasoning question types page.
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.
For C, I don’t see how less books being lost or stolen naturally leads to them being returned on time. Especially since there’s a possibility they can just be returned late, and not necessarily on time.
You’re right that fewer lost or stolen books doesn’t HAVE to mean more on-time returns, books could still just be returned late. But it’s still reasonable to think that if fewer books go missing, more stay in circulation, which could support more timely returns overall. Stopping books from going missing reasonably supports more on-time returns than if books keep going missing. It’s not absolutely airtight, but it follows the same logic as the stimulus.
D, on the other hand, gives no reasonable basis that building a new warehouse would cause employees to help plan changes to the old one. There’s no causal connection at all.
That makes sense, thank you!