Logical reasoning PrepTest 124 · Section 2 · Question 24

Incorrect. The conclusion here is too certain ("cannot") compared to the stimulus ("at least might").

Incorrect. The conclusion here is also too certain ("must have been") compared to the stimulus ("at least might").

Incorrect. This is the first answer where the strength of the conclusion matches that of the stimulus, so we need to dive in deeper. Here, however, Hugo matches up with the sufficient condition of the conditional premise, not the necessary one, so there's no the same reversal. Additionally, this conditional and the second premise/conclusion are a little different in talking about wanting something, which is used in a different sense in the conditional (where it's more akin to establishing a sufficient condition—Good teacher → not Confuse most students) and in the premise.

Incorrect. Yet another answer with a conclusion much stronger than the one in the stimulus ("must have").

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Meaningful public participation → Issues stated in way public can understand
Mayor's speech — Issues stated in way public can understand
Conclusion — It's possible there will be meaningful public participation

Answer Anticipation:
You may be asking why we listed this argument as valid even though it seems like an illegal reversal. After all, the argument establishes a conditional relationship, and then it uses the existence of the necessary condition to conclude the presence of the sufficient condition.

But that's not exactly what happened. The conclusion isn't that the sufficient condition is present—that the public will participate in the upcoming debate in a meaningful way. The conclusion states that the public might be able to do so.

The presence of a necessary condition doesn't guarantee the sufficient condition, but it does guarantee that the sufficient condition might be present.

None of this is too relevant to the task at hand—after all, in a Parallel Reasoning question, matching up the logical elements generally gets you to the correct answer even if you don't think too much about the validity of the argument. However, this discussion does highlight that the logical force of this argument is key to the logic—as it always is—thus reinforcing that we should be looking to match it in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
Our second answer with a matching conclusion! It also matches the rest of the argument and is thus correct:
Survive in very cold climate → Warm clothing
Jerome — Warm clothing
Conclusion — Jerome might survive in very cold climate

Key Takeaway:
Focusing on the logical force of the conclusion was enough to let us eliminate 3 wrong answers here. While that won't always be the case, finding that mismatch in the conclusion is usually good for at least 1, usually 2, and often 3 answers, so always be cognizant of it!