Logical reasoning PrepTest 115 · Section 2 · Question 18

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Historian → Spot trend
Spot trend → Distinguish significant from insignificant
Therefore - Distinguish significant from insignificant → Historian

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has two conditional premises that chain together, and a conditional conclusion that's the illegal reversal of that chain. It's pretty run-of-the-mill, so we're expecting the answers to be made up of conditional statements that will require us to work through the diagrams in order to make eliminations, since this is a question #18 and can't possibly be that straightforward!

A → B
B → C
Therefore - C → A

Answer Explanation:
Expression for emo impact → Used by poet
Figure of speech → Expression for emo impact
Therefore - Used by poet → Figure of speech
While this answer presents the premises/conclusion in a different order than the stimulus, that's not relevant to the logic. Here, there are two conditional premises that chain together, and a conclusion that's the reversal of that chain, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument falls into a common conditional flaw, look for elements that don't match up with that flaw in Flawed Parallel Reasoning answers. You can frequently get away with not diagramming out each answer if you can identify such an element!

Incorrect. This answer has a new concept in the conclusion ("not run by autocrats"), causality ("leads to"), and different certainty than the stimulus ("tends to"), so we can rule it out.

Incorrect. The premises here all have elements that are missing from the stimulus (OR statements, statements ruling out one possibility in favor of another), so we can eliminate it.

Incorrect. This answer does have conditional premises, but the conclusion is about what short-story writers could . . . have become, so the logical force is off from the stimulus.

Incorrect. Being entirely free is a new concept raised in the conclusion here, so it has a different flaw than the stimulus.