Logical reasoning PrepTest 119 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. This argument talks about dishwashers that lack certain characteristics, not ones that have them, so it's a fundamentally different argument.

Incorrect. This argument reaches a causal conclusion ("because"), so it has a Correlation/Causation flaw that the stimulus is missing.

Incorrect. This argument is flawed in that it takes what people say as true—that's a Perception vs. Reality flaw, which the stimulus lacks.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
We can make a 2x fuel efficient car, and a car that meets safety standards, so we can make a car that does both.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument establishes that two things are individually possible before concluding that they're possible at the same time. However, it could be the case that the two things are mutually exclusive—that one precludes the other. To think of a parallel, we can make gluten-free bread, and we can make bread with gluten, but we can't do both at the same time!

Let's find an answer that similarly concludes two things that are possible by themselves are also possible together.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that two types of novels are individually possible to write, and then it concludes that a novel can be written that falls into both categories. However, it ignores the possibility that the categories might be mutually exclusive, committing the same flaw as the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
This argument has a less common flawed pattern of reasoning—it assumes that things that are individually possible are also possible together. This ignores that the things might be mutually exclusive. The idea of mutual exclusion isn't the most common concept tested on the exam, but it does show up, so be sure to be familiar with it!

Incorrect. This answer establishes as a premise that it's possible to make a machine that both brews coffee and makes bread, so it doesn't assume that's possible. Instead, this argument assumes that something that's possible will eventually happen. (And we hope it does—if it can scramble an egg and make bacon, we're set!)