Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 16

Incorrect. Jump out of this answer as soon as you read that "Most" up front—quantifiers will essentially always match up in Parallel Reasoning questions!

Incorrect. The necessary condition of the opening premise here is an AND statement, not an OR statement, so we should rule this out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
New play 3+ months → Commercial success OR Critical success
(Last year) Critical success → Commercial success
Therefore - (Last year) New play 3+ months → Commercial success

Answer Anticipation:
This Parallel Reasoning question has a lot of conditional logic in it, so we should focus on that in our anticipation!

It starts with a conditional that uses "Every" to introduce a sufficient condition, and then it has an OR necessary condition. From there, it connects the two necessary conditions (one guarantees the other), before it concludes that the initial sufficient condition will always lead to the necessary condition guaranteed by the other. Or, in easier-to-read terminology:

A → B OR C
B → C
Therefore - A → C

Note also that the second premise and conclusion are time-limited—they talk about a particular year. That will almost certainly also be mirrored in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
Student at FSC → Desserts Or Soups

(This year) Soups → Desserts
Therefore - (This year) Student at FSC → Desserts
This argument has the same structure, with a necessary condition's two terms being connected, before concluding that one of them is guaranteed. It also limits the second and third premises to discussing a specific year. Since this matches up with the structure of the stimulus, this is the correct answer. Key Takeaway:
That OR necessary condition in the opening premise did a lot of work here! It allowed us to rule out three of the answers, and a "Most" allowed us to rule out the fourth. Knowing the elements that need to match up in these questions is key to getting through them efficiently.

Incorrect. The opening premise here throws in a "but not both" that's missing from the premises. Since an OR statement allows the possibility of both unless stated otherwise, this premise is logically distinct from the one in the stimulus. Additionally, the possibility of both being true was key to the logic of the stimulus, making this answer even worse.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), this answer's opening premise has an AND necessary condition, letting us rule it out.