Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 2 · Question 8

Incorrect. Anton's conclusion is that colds are "seldom" fatal, not that they're never fatal, so the conclusion isn't parallel with the stimulus.

Incorrect. First, the conclusion of this argument isn't that Lyla believes there are no groundhogs in the area, so it's a mismatch for the stimulus where the conclusion was about what the psychiatrist argued. Second, the conclusion here is that there "probably" aren't any groundhogs, which doesn't match the categorical nature of the psychiatrist's conclusion.

Incorrect. Sauda's premise is that something "rarely" is effective making it not match the premise in the stimulus that the psychiatrist had "never" seen a case of multiple personality disorder. The stimulus also uses a generalization in the premise to reach a conclusion about a specific case, which is in a sense the opposite of the stimulus.

Incorrect. The conclusion here bases a prediction about the future on a trend from the past, which is a different flaw. It also has that "probably" in the conclusion which doesn't match with the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
One psychiatrist never saw a patient with multiple personality disorder, so she concluded it didn't exist.

Answer Anticipation:
The psychiatrist's argument concludes that something doesn't exist on the grounds that she'd never seen it. That's way too small of a sample to draw such a wide-ranging conclusion! The correct answer should similarly draw a broad conclusion based on the experience of a single person.

Answer Explanation:
Jerod is basing a categorical conclusion ("there are no deer") on his own experience—the same flaw being committed by the psychiatrist in the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
One person's experience isn't enough to draw a strong, general conclusion. Here, just because the psychiatrist had never seen multiple personality disorder doesn't mean that no one else had—that'd be like concluding kangaroos don't exist because one person had never been to a zoo. Be careful, though, as a weaker generalization could be supported based on a single person's experience.