Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 2 · Question 24

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
There are 2 factors for punishment's ability to deter:
(1) Severity of penalty
(2) Likelihood of being punished
Juries sometimes refuse to convict if the penalty is too harsh, so increasing one of the factors can decrease the deterrent power.

Answer Anticipation:
For these arguments that don't use a common method of reasoning, rely on conditional logic, or commit a common error in reasoning, we're going to have to understand how the statements interact and come up with some structure we can work with.

Here, the argument starts by establishing two factors that determine the effectiveness of something. It then establishes that increasing one of the factors too much (severity) can result in the other one decreasing (likelihood of punishment—if the jury won't convict, then the likelihood of punishment goes to 0%). From that, it concludes that increasing that factor might lower that effectiveness.

Let's look for a similar situation where there are two factors, one of which might reduce the other when increased to a certain level.

Answer Explanation:
This answer starts by bringing up two factors that determine the "effectiveness" of getting your first academic job—time spent on and quality of dissertation. After that, it establishes that increasing one too much (time) can decrease the other (quality). It then concludes that increasing the first factor "can" lower that "effectiveness" of getting a job. This argument follows the same pattern as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument doesn't fall into a common pattern, it'll be up to you to establish a pattern for that question that is general enough to apply to a situation outside of the one in the stimulus but specific enough so that it applies only to the correct answer. To do so, focus on how the distinct concepts relate to each other, and be sure to identify common relationships. For instance, this argument had factors influencing something else (a causal relationship), an inversely proportional relationship (between the two factors), and a weak conclusion ("may").

Incorrect. This answer starts by comparing two groups, not raising two factors, so we can rule it out at that point.

Incorrect. This answer brings up two effects of the new surgical technique, not two factors in its effectiveness. It also compares to an old technique. For both of those reasons, this answer isn't parallel.

Incorrect. This answer brings up two factors in the effectiveness of a city in attracting tourists, so that part is parallel. However, it doesn't establish that one of the factors, when increased to a certain level, causes the other to decrease. Rather, it establishes that one is easier to influence than the other. Therefore, this answer isn't parallel.

Incorrect. This answer establishes one factor in determining price, not two, so it is missing a crucial part of the argument in the stimulus.