LSAT Question Stem

The pattern of reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to that in the town councillor's argument? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Parallel question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is B. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

First, let's summarize and analyze the argument in the passage. The town councillor argues that the only reason for having ordinances restricting skateboarding would be to protect children from danger. They acknowledge that skateboarding in River Park is dangerous, but argue against passing an ordinance prohibiting it. The reason for this is that if children cannot skateboard in the park, they will skateboard in the streets, which is even more dangerous. Therefore, passing an ordinance would have the opposite of the intended effect.

In this argument, we have two premises:

1. The only reason for restricting skateboarding is to protect children from danger.

2. If children cannot skateboard in the park, they will skateboard in the streets, which is more dangerous.

And the conclusion:

- We should not pass an ordinance prohibiting skateboarding in the park.

The question type is a Parallel question, which asks us to identify the answer choice that has a pattern of reasoning most similar to that of the town councillor's argument.

Let's examine each answer choice:

a) This answer choice focuses on two competing considerations (economics and the environment) rather than whether the environmental reviews will accomplish their goals. It also argues in favor of the reviews instead of against them, which is different from the stimulus. So, this choice is not parallel to the original argument.

b) This answer choice argues against using insecticides on aphids because it would have the opposite of the intended effect, which is exactly like the stimulus. Insecticides are meant to protect crops, but using them against aphids kills wasps that prey on insecticide-resistant pests, causing more harm. This choice is a good fit and is parallel to the original argument.

c) This answer choice argues that children should not be vaccinated against smallpox because the disease has been eliminated from the world's population. It does not suggest that vaccination would make children less healthy or more at risk for contracting the disease. The reasoning is not parallel to the original argument, so we can eliminate this choice.

d) This answer choice refutes the action of applying sealers to cedar siding on the basis that it's not needed. This reasoning is different from the original argument, which focuses on the unintended negative side effect of the action. Therefore, this choice is not parallel to the original argument.

e) This answer choice suggests that traffic patterns involving one-way streets should not be implemented in the South Main Street area because it would be detrimental to have traffic move faster. However, it does not argue that implementing the one-way streets would have the opposite of the intended effect. So, this choice is not parallel to the original argument.

Based on our analysis, the correct answer is B, as it follows a pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the town councillor's argument.