Practice Question

How tough is the LSAT?  This week, see how you do on the “parallel reasoning” question below:

Strategists predict that an armed civil conflict will occur if the dissemination of separatist propaganda continues or if oppressed religious groups are not given more freedom. But the liberation of oppressed religious groups would lead to the continued dissemination of separatist propaganda. Therefore, armed civil conflict is inevitable.

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) Pollution will increase if the cost of energy consumption does not increase or if we do not become more energy-efficient. But we will achieve greater energy efficiency if the cost of energy consumption does increase. Therefore, pollution will not increase.

(B) If alumni contributions remain at their current level or if we fail to recruit top talent, then the basketball team’s record will most likely worsen. But we will fail to recruit top talent. Therefore, the basketball team’s record will most likely worsen.

(C) If the automation of tasks increases or worker satisfaction does not decline, then productivity at the factory will rise. But if there is a decline in worker satisfaction, that will lead to the automation of more tasks. Therefore, productivity at the factory will rise.

(D) If the dissemination of separatist propaganda continues or if media censorship is not relaxed, the frequency of political protests will increase. But the threat of trade embargoes ensures both that such dissemination will not continue and that media censorship will be relaxed. Thus, the frequency of political protests will not increase.

(E) If authoritarian regimes are not weakened and religious freedoms are not expanded, then living conditions will continue to stagnate. But due to a lack of international political will, authoritarian regimes will certainly maintain their strength and religious freedoms will not expand. Thus, living conditions will continue to stagnate.

Answer Explanation
Structure:

1. If X occurs (separatist propaganda continues) or if Y does not occur (oppressed groups are not given more freedom), then an outcome Z (armed civil conflict) will occur.
2. If Y does occur, then X will occur.
3. Conclusion: It is inevitable that Z will occur.

Symbolized:

1. X or ~ Y ⇒ Z
2. Y ⇒ X
3. Conclusion: Z

The answer will mimic this structure by providing evidence that each of two conditions can guarantee an outcome and that if one condition doesn’t hold then the other must, validly concluding from this that the outcome must occur.
 

Choice C: If X occurs (“automation of tasks increases”) or Y does not occur (“worker satisfaction does not decline”), then an outcome Z (“productivity… will rise”) occurs; this matches (1). If Y does occur, then X will also occur; this matches (2). Conclusion: Z must occur; this matches (3). Choice C is correct.
Choice A: While an outcome (“pollution will increase”) is guaranteed by either of two conditions, the conclusion that it does not occur (“pollution will not increase”) does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur. Furthermore, unlike the argument in the passage, the argument in the answer choice is flawed ( ~ X or ~ Y ⇒ Z; Y ⇒ X; therefore ~ Z).
Choice B: The evidence, “we will fail to recruit top talent,” does not match (2), because it addresses only one of the two conditions rather than a relationship between them. Furthermore, the conclusion that an outcome will most likely occur does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur.
Choice D: The conclusion that an outcome guaranteed by either of two conditions does not occur (“the frequency… will not increase”) does not match the passage’s conclusion in (3) that Z will occur. Furthermore, this evidence introduces a third condition (“threat of trade embargoes”) that has no analogue in the original.
Choice E: The evidence that both of two conditions lead to an outcome (~ X and ~ Y ⇒ Z) does not match the passage’s evidence (1) that either of two conditions lead to an outcome (X or ~ Y ⇒ Z). Furthermore, this evidence introduces a third condition (“lack of international political will”) that has no analogue in the original.

This question was brought to you by the fantastic LSAT teachers at Knewton. Click here to learn more about how Knewton’s LSAT prep course will help you reach your target score.