Logical reasoning PrepTest 117 · Section 3 · Question 16

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
not Excel in convenience AND not Excel in variety → not Tend to be successful
But some successful retailers excel in one and meet standards in the other
Therefore — Excelling in both isn't necessary to succeed

Answer Anticipation:
We represented the first statement as a conditional, but it's not really conditional, as it talks about what "tend[s]" to be the case. However since the conclusion discusses something that is necessary (or rather isn't necessary) so we can "cheat" a bit to help us understand the structure.

In this argument the author starts by showing that failing to excel in two different areas simultaneously makes it unlikely that a retailer will be successful. However it then brings up the many examples of retailers that are successful despite excelling at only one of the two areas. From that it validly concludes that being great in both areas isn't necessary.

So to get a generic structure from that:
Missing excellence in two areas tends to lead to a negative outcome
But there are things that have a positive outcome despite only excelling in one
Therefore — Excelling in both things aren't jointly necessary for a positive outcome

Answer Explanation:
Runners who don't excel in two qualities tend to not win. But some runners win despite excelling in only one area. Therefore excelling in both isn't necessary to win a race. That's the same argument as the stimulus so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Sometimes there will be conditional logic concepts in an argument that isn't really conditional. Here the conclusion was that something isn't necessary for something else and the opening line was about a tendency for a certain outcome when two conditions are absent. These are conditional—adjacent ideas and so structuring our thinking that way can make it easier to understand what we're looking for in an answer.

Incorrect. This argument draws a distinction between short and long races, but no such distinction exists in the stimulus—all the statements are about success, not success in specific areas.

Incorrect. The opening premise here is that excellence in a certain area isn't necessary to succeed, but that matches with the conclusion of the stimulus and none of the premises, so we can eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. The second premise here establishes that something is necessary ("essential") which matches the conclusion of the stimulus not a premise. This answer also shifts to discussion eating on top of baking.

Incorrect. This answer has intermediate conclusions ("and are thus") and it also establishes several different ways to be successful so this answer isn't parallel.