Logical reasoning PrepTest 116 · Section 2 · Question 24

Incorrect. This answer has a subtle shift. The conclusion is about allowing their children to have snacks between meals, but the premise is about allowing them to have snacks between meals instead of dessert. In shifting the action being discussed, this answer is flawed in a different way than in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer jumps from what some corporations do to what any corporation should do. It's also based on employees that may be less productive. The language here is weaker in the premises than in the conclusion, a flaw not present in the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Statement — It's legal to ride a motorcycle without a seatbelt.
Comparison — Riding a motorcycle with a seatbelt is more dangerous than riding in a car without a seatbelt.
Conclusion — It should be legal to ride a car without a seatbelt.

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here concludes a recommendation/judgment—something should be legal. Specifically, riding in a car without a seatbelt shouldn't be required by law.

Whenever an argument concludes such a judgment, the premises need to establish the criteria by which such a judgment/recommendation will be decided, and then establish it applies in the given case.

Here, the argument doesn't establish that criteria—instead, it relies on a comparison between riding a motorcycle and driving a car. That comparison between riding a motorcycle and riding in a car (with and without seatbelts) isn't nearly enough to justify the conclusion here since the danger associated with riding a motorcycle might be inherently much higher than riding in a car—so showing that a car is safer than a motorcycle doesn't say much at all!

Let's find an answer that bases a similar recommendation/judgment on a comparison.

Answer Explanation:
This argument establishes that something is legal, compares its safety to something else that might be banned, and from that concludes that the thing shouldn't be banned (should allow" is logically equivalent to not banning the action). That's the same structure and flaw as the stimulus. There, riding a motorcycle was potentially more dangerous than riding in a car, no matter what safety features are engaged; here, being near the edge of a cliff is similarly potentially more dangerous than riding on a roller coaster, no matter what position the person is in.
j
Key Takeaway:
Identifying elements of the stimulus that are related to the flaw can be key in identifying right and wrong answers in Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions. Just make sure you don't make an elimination based on an element that isn't related to the error in reasoning!

Incorrect. Here, the premise establishes that it should be" illegal to pollute drinking water, whereas a key part of the stimulus was that riding a motorcycle without a seatbelt is legal.

Incorrect. This comparison establishes that the only difference between the yard and park is in size, whereas the stimulus notes that the danger is higher in one situation than another but doesn't control for other variables. As such, this answer eliminates that incomplete comparison flaw in the stimulus.