Unplugged Practice Test: Logical Reasoning Set 3, Question 12 (Strengthen)
Taking the test? Finish it first. This page shows the answer.
- Strengthen questions ask which new fact most supports the argument.
- Find the gap the argument leaves open, then look for the choice that closes it.
- Every question on this test is original, written to the same logical skeletons as real questions, and Steve checked every one himself before release.
The question
When competing for a head-coach post, applicants sometimes pledge changes that they judge would harm the club's swimmers. Once hired, though, a coach ought to carry out any pledged change that the coach judges would not leave the swimmers worse off.
12. The principle above, if established, best justifies the reasoning in which one of the following arguments?
- (A)Ferreira was hired after pledging a dawn practice block. On the job, Ferreira saw that the block would cut the dryland sessions the swimmers rely on. So Ferreira should not add the block.
- (B)Delacroix thinks a longer meet season would leave the swimmers no better off, but that pledging one will help Delacroix get hired, and that Delacroix's hiring serves the swimmers. So Delacroix does nothing wrong in making the pledge.
- (C)Ambrose pledged a switch to two-lane warmups while judging that the switch would set the swimmers back. After being hired, though, Ambrose concluded the switch would help them. So Ambrose should carry it out.
- (D)Nakashima was hired after pledging to keep the winter travel meet. On the job, Nakashima grew skeptical that the meet does the swimmers any good. So Nakashima should drop the pledge.
- (E)Oyelaran was hired after pledging to rebuild the relay rotation. On the job, Oyelaran concluded that rebuilding it would set the swimmers back. So Oyelaran should never have pledged it.
CWhy (C) is correct
The principle covers a coach who once judged a pledged change harmful but, after taking the job, comes to believe it would not leave the swimmers worse off. Ambrose fits exactly: pledged the two-lane warmup switch while thinking it would hurt the swimmers, then concluded after being hired that it would actually help them. Since a change that helps clearly doesn't leave anyone worse off, the principle says Ambrose should carry it out, and that's exactly what the argument concludes.
Why the other answers are wrong
AWhy (A) is wrong
(A) Ferreira's dryland-sessions worry means the pledge still looks harmful on the job, so the principle gives no reason to add the practice block; it doesn't drive the argument's conclusion.
BWhy (B) is wrong
(B) Delacroix's case is about whether it was wrong to pledge something in the first place to get hired, not about whether to follow through on a pledge once hired.
DWhy (D) is wrong
(D) Nakashima merely doubts the winter meet helps the swimmers; the principle is about carrying out pledges that wouldn't hurt them, not about dropping ones that fail to help.
EWhy (E) is wrong
(E) Oyelaran's conclusion is a verdict on whether the pledge should have been made at all, not on whether to carry out a pledge now believed harmless.
Common questions
What type of question is this?
Strengthen. Strengthen questions ask which new fact most supports the argument.
How do I get better at Strengthen questions?
Find the gap the argument leaves open, then look for the choice that closes it. The free LSAT cheat sheet lists the wrong-answer patterns to watch for on every type.
