LSAT Explanation PT 38, S1, Q22: Damming the Merv River would provide
LSAT Question Stem
The reasoning in the argument above most closely parallels that in which one of the following?
Logical Reasoning Question Type
This is a Parallel question.
Correct Answer
The correct answer to this question is C.
LSAT Question Complete Explanation
The passage presents an argument about the consequences of damming the Merv River. The argument is structured as follows:
1. Premise: Damming the Merv River would provide irrigation for the dry land in its upstream areas.
2. Premise: A dam would reduce agricultural productivity in the fertile land downstream by reducing the availability and quality of the water there.
3. Premise: The productivity loss in the downstream area would be greater than the productivity gain upstream.
4. Conclusion: Building a dam would yield no overall gain in agricultural productivity in the region as a whole.
The argument essentially states that while building a dam would provide some benefits, it would also cause greater harm, resulting in no overall gain.
The question type is a Parallel question, which asks us to identify the answer choice whose reasoning most closely parallels that of the passage.
Let's analyze each answer choice:
a) This answer choice discusses overcooking eggs to destroy bacteria, but it does not parallel the passage's argument structure. The passage is about weighing the benefits and harms of an action (building a dam) and concluding that there is no overall gain. This answer choice is about prioritizing health over taste, which is not the same reasoning.
b) This answer choice talks about increasing the price of transatlantic telephone calls and its effect on telephone company profits. It does not discuss the balancing of benefits and harms like the passage does. Instead, it focuses on the proportion of calls made by businesses versus private individuals. The reasoning does not closely parallel the passage's argument.
c) This answer choice discusses the effects of a new highway on suburban commuters' overall commuting time. It presents a similar structure to the passage's argument: a new highway would provide some benefits (reaching the city more quickly), but also cause greater harm (increased delays within the city), resulting in no overall reduction in commuting time. This answer choice closely parallels the passage's argument and is the correct answer.
d) This answer choice discusses doctors prescribing antibiotics for minor illnesses and the alternative of resting at home. While it does consider the benefits and harms of taking antibiotics, it does not present the same reasoning as the passage. The passage's argument is about the balance of gains and losses, while this answer choice concludes that it is better to rest at home than see a doctor. The reasoning does not closely parallel the passage's argument.
e) This answer choice discusses a chemical that kills garden pests but damages other plants. The reasoning in this choice does not closely parallel the passage's argument. While it does discuss benefits and harms, it concludes that only gardens with tomatoes will benefit from the chemical, which is not the same as the passage's conclusion that there is no overall gain.
In summary, answer choice C most closely parallels the reasoning in the passage, as both discuss the benefits and harms of an action and conclude that there is no overall gain or reduction.