Parallel ReasoningDiff: Medium

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: If we let in more foreign steel, our local companies get hurt. Since the government refuses to hurt local companies, they aren't going to let in more steel.

Conclusion: The current government will not remove the existing limits on imported steel.

Reasoning: Lifting import restrictions would damage the domestic steel industry, and this government has a policy of avoiding any actions that cause such harm.

Analysis: This argument follows a classic valid deductive structure known as Modus Tollens. It establishes a conditional relationship (If A, then B) and then denies the consequent (Not B) to conclude the negation of the antecedent (Not A). When looking for a match, focus strictly on this 'If P then Q; Not Q; therefore Not P' skeleton. Do not get distracted by the political or economic subject matter; the logical blueprint is what matters here.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

16.

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

Correct Answer
E
E matches the form: If installing bright floodlights (action), then the telescope is useless (bad outcome). The department refuses any proposal that would render the telescope useless (policy). Therefore, it will not support floodlight proposals (reject the action). This mirrors the government’s reasoning about steel imports.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep