Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 4 · Question 2

Incorrect. The Principal talks specifically about Ms. Smith's son's situation, not all the students in the class.

Incorrect. There are a couple issues with this answer. First, the Principal relates the throwing of raisins to the accident, not being in a traffic jam. Second, the level of inconvenience doesn't have to be exact—in fact, there doesn't even need to be inconvenience, as long as there is something similar to inconvenience that makes sense in the context of the analogy.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
S: My son is innocent of raisin throwing and everyone knows who the raisin-throwers are, so I'm upset you punished my son.

P: It's like a traffic jam caused by an accident—even those who aren't in the accident get slowed down.

Answer Anticipation:
Whenever an argument relies on a comparison—and an analogy is a type of a comparison—it's generally flawed in that it fails to establish all relevant points of comparison. Specifically, when it relies on two things being similar, the argument fails to establish that the two things being compared are similar in all relevant ways.

As such, this argument is flawed in that the Principal fails to establish that the traffic situation is similar to the situation at the school in all relevant ways, and the correct answer will either state that directly or bring up a specific way in which they're relevantly different.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a relevant difference between the situations. The Principal essentially states that he can't do anything about the punishment, as if he weren't the one in charge of implementing it. He could call it off for the students who weren't involved in the raisin throwing. That's not the same as a traffic jam following an accident, as that's not similarly based on a single person's decision that they can easily change. Since this answer highlights a relevant difference between the situations that the Principal fails to acknowledge, it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument relies on a comparison (including an analogy), it's assuming that the two situations are similar in all relevant ways. As such, answers tend to deal with additional similarities or differences, depending on the question type.

Incorrect. First, there's no evidence noted to the contrary- Ms. Smith simply asserts her son's innocence as true. Second, the Principal relates her son to people caught in the traffic jam, not the guilty party (the person who caused the accident).

Incorrect. The Principal doesn't bring up any facts about the incident—his substantive statements are entirely the analogy, which is a completely separate situation.