Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 1 · Question 22

Incorrect. The stimulus compares the productivity effects in two areas; this compares the effect of an action on bacteria and taste, and then it ranks those features. That's a different argument! This answer also speaks in favor of the course of action instead of against it, as the stimulus does.

Incorrect. This answer talks about profits by looking at cost and volume—that's different from looking at one factor in two different areas.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A dam would help productivity upstream but hurt it downstream. The downstream loss would be more than the upstream gain, so it'd result in no net gain.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument compares the effect on productivity of a dam on the two areas in a region—the upstream region and the downstream region. One would go up; the other down. The decrease would be greater than the increase, so there would be no overall gain.

We should find an answer that similarly looks at a potential course of action, shows that the downsides are greater than the upsides, and concludes that there is no net benefit of taking the course of action.

Answer Explanation:
This answer looks at a course of action (new highway), and compares the effect on commute time both into the city and then in the city itself. The downsides are greater than the upsides, though, and the argument thus speaks against the course of action, as the stimulus does. This is therefore the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Parallel Reasoning questions sometimes come down to how many "elements" there are. Here, if you had headed into the answers expecting the correct one to just balance pros and cons, then you may have been led astray. Instead, it was important to note that it looked at the same element (productivity) in two areas.

Incorrect. This answer compares cost and effectiveness instead of a single factor.

Incorrect. This answer does balance the damage done by a chemical to two different things, but it then concludes that the chemical is useful in (only) certain situations, whereas the stimulus doesn't make a similar determination.