Logical Reasoning · Paradox

PrepTest 152 · Section 1 · Question 13

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type

Paradox

The one idea it tests

The harm was removed, yet the victim did not bounce back. Something else, often tied to the harm itself, is now holding it down.

The basic logic

Both facts must shake hands: the harm is gone, and no recovery. Look for a hidden effect of the old harm (such as it also kept a rival in check) that makes no recovery sensible.

Tiny words that decide it

“yet”
“at first”
“however”
“nearly”

Playground logic

Chess club shrank because of noise, the noise left, and chess club still didn't grow. Handshake: the noise had also kept the checkers club out, and now checkers moved in and pulls kids away.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Quiet Room Mystery

Chess club used to have twenty kids. Then it dropped to six. At first everyone blamed the chilly classroom. Later, Lulu's clipboard notes showed the real cause: the drumming club practiced next door, and the banging drove chess kids away. Ms. Rivera moved the drummers to the gym. The room is quiet now. Yet chess club is still stuck at six. Marcus was baffled. 'The problem is gone! Where is everybody?' Priya sipped her juice box. 'Maybe the drums were also keeping something else away.' Sure enough, the checkers club had always avoided that noisy hall. Once it got quiet (and the heater got fixed), checkers moved into the room next door and started recruiting every chess kid it could find. Kevin joined checkers too, mainly for the snacks.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Chess club membership shrank, and the cause turned out to be loud drumming next door, not the chilly room. The drumming has now been moved far away. Yet chess club membership has not grown.

Suppose each choice is true. Which one does the best job of clearing up why chess club has not recovered?

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Bakery That Did Not Bounce Back

Mr. Whitfield's client, a bakery owner, sued a construction company. 'Your Honor, their jackhammers drove away my customers. The jackhammers stopped months ago, yet my sales are still low.' The company's lawyer smiled. 'Then we are not to blame for today's sales.' Mr. Whitfield raised a finger. 'Ah, but the noise also scared off a rival café that planned to open across the street. When the noise ended, that café opened and took my client's regulars.' Judge Hartley rubbed his chin. 'So the harm's own side effect explains why the bakery never recovered.' 'Exactly, Your Honor.' The judge allowed the claim to proceed.

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 152, Section 1, Question 13 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

State the puzzle in two parts: the harm was removed, and the victim still did not recover. Look for a choice that makes both facts fit together, often by showing the old harm had a second effect that now works against recovery. Reject choices that only describe the harm getting smaller, mention unrelated groups, or make the puzzle worse.