Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 12

Incorrect. Here, the argument notes that, after the initial argument was made, the members stopped engaging in the cause (overeating). In the stimulus, the change was that the effect disappeared (bad grades). Since this argument reverses that causal relationship, it commits a different error in reasoning.

Incorrect. This argument doesn't have any self-interest involved that suggests a specific alternative explanation. The complaints were made, the manager improved working conditions (by decreasing tasks), and complaints went down, suggesting the manager's explanation was correct.

Incorrect. The "change" here wasn't a change to either the cause or effect noted in the initial phenomenon/explanation, but rather a way to objectively measure something. That's missing from the stimulus, so this answer is incorrect.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Principal:
Phenomenon - Failing students
Explanation - Bad teaching

New phenomenon - After this, grades improved.
Explanation - Teaching improved

Answer Anticipation:
This is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question, so we should start by identifying the flaw in the logic. And the argument itself falls into a specific pattern—a Phenomenon/Explanation pattern. In fact, it specifically features a phenomenon/explanation, a change, and then an explanation for that changed phenomenon.

When dealing with Phenomenon/Explanation arguments, we should start by considering whether there's an alternative explanation. Here, there definitely is. If the Principal is going to say that bad grades are the result of bad teaching, then it's possible that the teachers are giving out good grades to be recognized for good teaching, even if they didn't change their teaching at all.

In ignoring this possibility, the argument is flawed. Let's find an argument that has a similar pattern (phenomenon → explanation → change → explanation) and has an explanation that is similarly suggested by the details and overlooked.

Answer Explanation:
This answer follows the same pattern (phenomenon → explanation → change → explanation; complaints → not enough to do → no more complaints → enough to do). And it also suggests a self-interested alternative explanation—if the workers thought complaints would lead to them getting assigned more work, that provides a motive for them to not complain. Since this argument follows the same pattern and ignores the same type of alternative explanation, it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Certain argument patterns are associated with certain errors in reasoning, and knowing those associations can make determining the flaw an efficient process.

Incorrect. Here, there's no self-interested reason for the team members to suggest that they were thinking of food less often. These team members would still either gain weight or not, and thinking about food isn't a "punishment" the way that being called a bad teacher is.