Logical reasoning PrepTest 103 · Section 2 · Question 20

Incorrect. The second premise here isn't a some statement, so we can rule this answer out. (It commits a Part to Whole flaw, in assigning to Jeanne, a part of the chorus, a characteristic of the whole chorus.)

Incorrect. The second premise here is a conditional, not a some statement, so we can rule this answer out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Daisies-some-Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum-some-Edible/Palatable
Therefore - Daisies-some-Edible/Palatable

Answer Anticipation:
The question stem here specifically asks us about Martha's reasoning, so we should focus there instead of on what her friend argues. That said, Martha's conclusion references her friend's argument, so we should make sure we understand what that conclusion states!

If we start with Martha's argument, we can see that she bases her conclusion on two quantified premises. The first says that there's some overlap between daisies and chrysanthemums. The second says that there's some overlap between chrysanthemums and edible/palatable plants. We should note right away that there are no valid inferences that can be drawn from two some statements, so it's likely that we've identified the flaw.

Looking at Martha's conclusion, we can see it calls her friend's conclusion "incorrect." Her friend's conclusion? That there are no edible/palatable daisies. For that to be incorrect, Martha would have to believe that there are some edible/palatable daisies.

If we look at the structure of the argument, we can see that Martha tries to combine two some statements in arriving at another some statement. That's an invalid argument structure, so let's find an answer that follows that pattern.

Answer Explanation:
Two some premises that share a term? Check. A some conclusion that draws an inference from the two premises? Check. Right answer? Check.

Key Takeaway:
Quantifier questions can be difficult, but when they show up in Flawed/Parallel Reasoning questions, they're actually quite helpful. Identify how the quantifiers factor into the argument, and then match them up to find the correct answer.

Incorrect. Jump out as soon as you see that first "Most"—especially since (C) was spot on.

Incorrect. The second premise here is a most statement, so we can rule it out.