Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 3 · Question 15

Correct. This answer discusses two groups that would both lose money investing in mineral extractions, so it doesn't feature the same negation as the stimulus.

Incorrect. First, this answer has a lot of relative terms that aren't matched in the stimulus ("better position", "likely"). Second, this answer's conclusion reverses the relationship in the premise instead of negating it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
It's okay to let patients with extreme symptoms try experimental cures, so it's never okay to let patients without extreme symptoms try these cures.

Answer Anticipation:
While this argument doesn't feature conditional logic, it does commit a flaw that's very familiar in that context—an illegal negation. It treats one group having a feature as establishing that anyone not in that group doesn't have that feature.

Answer Explanation:
This argument starts with a premise about someone who has lived in a country being in a good position to judge that country, and it jumps to a conclusion about someone who hasn't lived in that country not being in a good position to judge that country. That's the same negation featured in the stimulus, so this the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Illegal negations are most commonly associated with conditional logic, but they can also be present when discussing groups. If an argument talks about a group and reaches a conclusion about people not in that group, then start to think about this flaw.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't feature an illegal negation, instead talking about something being impossible/costly and jumping to a discussion of it being reasonable.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't feature an illegal negation, hopping from talking about industrial developments to a conclusion about non-industrial developments.