PrepTest 116 · Section 3 · Question 16 (Parallel Reasoning)

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Parallel Reasoning

The one idea it tests

Weak at both tends to fail; many winners excel at just one and are ordinary at the other; so excelling at both isn't required.

The basic logic

X-ray the argument: (1) lacking both qualities usually means failure, (2) many successes excel at one quality while only meeting the standard on the other, (3) so excellence at both is not needed. Find the choice with the same three bones, the same two qualities, and a 'not necessary' conclusion about both.

Tiny words that decide it

“neither”
“only one”
“not necessary”

Playground logic

Priya's lemonade argument: stands that are neither tasty nor cheap flop, but many popular stands are great at one and just okay at the other, so a stand needn't be great at both. The X-ray shows three bones; the parallel answer needs all three, in that shape.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Lemonade Stand Study

Priya has studied every lemonade stand on Maple Street, clipboard borrowed from Lulu. "Stands that are neither tasty nor cheap usually flop," she reports. "Nobody wants sour lemonade for two dollars." Tommy nods; he once tried that. "But lots of popular stands are amazing at just one thing and only ordinary at the other. Nadia's is super cheap and tastes fine. Owen's tastes amazing and costs the normal price." Marcus slams his fist on the table. "So you have to be the best at both!" Priya shakes her head. "Other way, Detective. My point is that a stand doesn't need to be great at both to be popular." Marcus thinks hard. "So I can just be really, really cheap?" "And taste normal," adds Lulu. Biscuit votes for any lemonade that spills.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Lemonade stands that are neither tasty nor cheap usually flop. But plenty of popular stands are great at only one of these and merely ordinary at the other. So a stand need not be great at both to be popular.

Which choice follows the same reasoning blueprint as Priya's argument?

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Bakery Contest

In a fictional baking guild hearing, a judge is asked to rule that winners must have both perfect frosting and perfect sponge. Mr. Whitfield presents the records. "Your Honor, cakes with neither good frosting nor good sponge almost never win. But many champions had stunning frosting and an ordinary sponge, or a stunning sponge and ordinary frosting." He snaps his suspenders. "So a champion doesn't have to be superb at both." The rival lawyer sputters. "But superb at both would be nice!" "Nice, yes. Required, no." The judge nods. "Bad at both: usually loses. Great at one, fine at the other: often wins. So both isn't a must. Rule denied."

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 116, Section 3, Question 16 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

X-ray the real argument into its three bones: what happens when both qualities are lacking, what happens with excellence in only one plus adequacy in the other, and a conclusion that excellence in both is not required. Check each choice bone by bone. The match must keep two qualities, the same 'just one is enough' evidence, and a 'not necessary' conclusion. Reject choices whose conclusion changes the subject, flips the logic, or reaches another sort of claim.