Logical reasoning PrepTest 110 · Section 3 · Question 25

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts/Facts

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
J: Business spends money to go green → Market share decrease
not Business spends money to go green → Pollutes environment AND Wastes resources

T: Consumers demand all businesses go green → No one business particularly hurt

Answer Anticipation:
Since the stimulus asks us to find an answer that is most similar to the relationship between the statements in the stimulus, we should make sure to think about how they overlap. But we're getting ahead of ourselves—let's talk about the individual statements, first!

Jordan presents two conditionals, and they have "opposite" sufficient conditions—one is if something does happen the other is if it doesn't happen. The outcomes mentioned (the necessary conditions) are unrelated.

Terry then brings up a conditional consideration but now we should start to think about how it overlaps with Jordan's.

Terry talks about consumers demanding that all businesses act in an environmentally responsible way—in other words they all spend money to go green thus meeting the sufficient condition of the first of Jordan's conditionals. She notes that if all businesses have to do this then no business will be especially hurt—in other words no one's market share would decrease.

So in looking at the answers we should find one that has Jordan talking about what will happen when something does happen and when it doesn't happen. And then Terry should focus on one of those situations showing that there's a way to mitigate the downside to it.

Answer Explanation:
Jordan's statements discuss what will happen if it rains and if it doesn't rain thus matching his statements from the stimulus. Terry talks about one of the situations—if it doesn't rain—and establishes that the downside to it (the plants not getting watered) can be mitigated (watering the garden with a hose). This answer therefore matches the logic of the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
It's rare to get a Parallel Reasoning question that has two speakers but it does come up! When that happens you should focus on how the two speakers' statements overlap/intersect with each other even if the question stem doesn't specifically ask about it. That interplay between the viewpoints is likely going to be key to the correct answer.

Incorrect. Jordan's conclusion here is an either/or statement—that's not the same as presenting two conditionals that highlight the outcome of something happening and it not happening.

Incorrect. Jordan draws a conditional in this answer whereas his statements in the stimulus presented only two conditionals.

Incorrect. Jordan's two premises here are based on the same condition—remodeling the kitchen. That's different from the stimulus where his two conditionals were based on opposite conditions (investing/not investing).

Incorrect. Jordan's statements here reflect the outcome of an action and its opposite so his statements are parallel to the stimulus. However Terry here says that one of the outcomes isn't really possible and she then goes on to talk about the "most prudent" possibility so her statements aren't parallel.