Logical reasoning PrepTest 122 · Section 4 · Question 17

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Phenomenon - Children who grew up playing music are frequently good at math
Potential explanation - Learning music teaches skills required for math
Equally likely explanation - These kids grew up in a house that pushed their kids to excel in all areas
Conclusion - The potential explanation can't be validly concluded

Answer Anticipation:
It's always good when we can recognize an argument that itself points out the error in reasoning in an opposing point! In Parallel Reasoning questions, understanding this will make it much easier to find the correct answer.

Here, the author brings up a correlation between learning music as a child and being good at math later in life. You may have expected the argument to then conclude that one caused the other, but it instead concludes that this causal relationship can't be concluded. Why not? For a common reason that we use to attack correlation/causation arguments—there could be another factor that caused both of the correlated phenomenon!

Let's find an answer that similarly raises a correlation but then says a causal relationship can't be concluded because of a potential third factor that causes both things in the correlation. And let's watch out for answers that point out a similar correlation/causation flaw, but present a different reason that it can't be validly drawn (e.g., reversed causality; coincidence).

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a correlation between lack of attention and doing poorly in school, but then rules out a direct causal relationship between those two because hearing issues could cause both of them. This points out the same correlation/causation flaw, and it invalidates the potential conclusion because of a third cause, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Parallel Reasoning arguments will sometimes point out the flawed logic in an opposing point. When this happens, you're well equipped to find the correct answer because you're looking for one that points out the same flaw. Remember, however, that some flaws have different "flavors," and the flavor of that flaw has to match between the stimulus and the answer.

Incorrect. This argument rules out a third factor (better secondary schools) to explain a correlation (foreign exchange students and doing well), not to say that the correlated things aren't directly causally related. To match the stimulus, the causal relationship ruled out would have to be between being a foreign exchange student and doing better in school.

Incorrect. The reason this answer states the causal relationship can't be concluded is because the correlation may be a coincidence, which is a different reason than in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer brings up a requirement to go to medical school, not a correlation between those who go to medical school and a certain characteristic.

Incorrect. The alternative possibility here doesn't replace the initial relationship—it brings up that less vigorous exercise might "also" have benefits, thus allowing vigorous exercise to itself have benefits.