What a fun LSAT-style question. It seems as though some people are having trouble between (B) and (C). Of course, since we are asked to follow a similar line of reasoning as the one presented in the passage, we need to have a clear picture of what the reasoning looks like:
Bunuel wrote:
Just as a bicycle chain may be too tight, so may one’s carefulness and conscientiousness be so tense as to hinder the running of one’s mind.
There is an analogy here.
A bicycle chain may be too tight and thereby hinder the proper functioning of the bicycle :
one's carefulness and conscientiousness may be so tense as to hinder the proper functioning of one's mind. The connection could not be any tighter. Getting to our two shortlisted answer choices...
Bunuel wrote:
Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the argument above?
(B) Just as a carousel may spin too quickly, so may one’s rapid concentration on several problems prevent a resolution of difficulties.
Keep in mind, the bicycle chain needs to be tightened to a point to allow the bicycle to function properly. Here, a carousel needs to spin for the ride to work properly. But if the carousel spins too quickly, it
hinders the proper functioning of the ride. The second part of this comparison goes into a mental process, similar to what we saw in part two of the passage. Here, concentration is necessary to resolve difficulties, but too
rapid a concentration, on
several problems at that,
prevents or
hinders the proper
resolution of difficulties. Everything fits.
Bunuel wrote:
(C) Just as a machine may be oiled too much, so may one’s heavy drinking of alcoholic beverages lead to complete dissipation.
A machine may need to be oiled to function properly, but too much oil leads to... what? A mess? Does it
necessarily hinder the machine from functioning properly? Maybe, maybe not. But what happens when we jump across the comma? We get an action,
drinking, which cannot be said to be necessary for a human to function properly. Yes,
heavy drinking will certainly inhibit or
hinder proper functioning, but then we get this overreaching
complete dissipation. Are we to interpret this as a
complete breakdown? If so, this result would
not parallel the outcome of the passage, the
hindering of proper function instead. If, on the other hand, we take
complete dissipation at face value to mean
complete overindulgence, or a descent into drunkenness, then what does that have to do with a well-oiled machine? Does such a machine break down entirely? That is speculative at best. Does the machine overindulge? Impossible, unless we are talking about an
intelligent machine. In any case, we are meant to tie the answer choice back into an analogy based on inhibiting the proper functioning of something, nothing more. This answer fails to deliver.
I would be happy to discuss the question further, or any other answer choices, should someone still be curious.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.