Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 3 · Question 14

Incorrect. This argument is conditioned on the newspaper being correct. The stimulus doesn't have the same qualification of assuming that someone is correct, so this answer isn't parallel. The absolute premise in this argument also establishes that the team is unlikely to win the tournament ("equal chance of winning" between 8 teams is a _ chance), whereas the stimulus has Maria definitely enjoying the party.

Incorrect. The premise here applies the likelihood ("most") to the first term, not the second as in the stimulus. Also, the absolute premise triggers that first term instead of negating the "necessary condition" as the stimulus did.

Incorrect. The second premise ("since . . . ") is in a completely different form than the stimulus—it's conditional ("if it were unfair") and mashes together both terms from the initial "conditional" instead of just dealing with one of them.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Juan at party → Highly unlikely Maria enjoyed party
Maria enjoyed party
Therefore - Highly unlikely Juan at party

Answer Anticipation:
Did you get tripped up by the "highly unlikely" in what would otherwise be a conditional statement? You're in good company.

However, remember that we're trying to find an answer that matches the structure and logic of this argument, not determine its validity (which we'll come back to in a minute). So instead of worrying about how these aspects of the argument affect that validity, you should have instead focused on identifying the relevant logical elements and then looked for them in the correct answers.

Here, we have a "conditional" that states the necessary condition is "highly unlikely" when the sufficient condition is present. That's not a true conditional, but the relationship should still be clear.

It then establishes that the highly unlikely thing did happen, and it concludes that it's highly unlikely that the sufficient condition happened.

Again instead of worrying about whether you can take the contrapositive of a "conditional" statement with a less-than-certain necessary condition, you should have identified these elements to come up with a structure that looks like:
A → Highly unlikely B
B
Therefore - Highly unlikely A

(As to whether this is a valid argument, it is. The likelihood of different conditions happening can carry through in conditionals. Don't worry too much about it—it usually comes up in Parallel questions, and in that case, you don't have to work with the logic, you just need to match it!)

Answer Explanation:
Clarissa missed bus → Highly unlikely at work on time
At work on time
Therefore - Highly unlikely Clarissa missed bus
This argument establishes a "conditional" with a "highly unlikely" necessary condition. It then establishes that the highly unlikely event did happen before concluding that the sufficient condition is highly unlikely. That's the same structure as the stimulus, so this answer is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a Parallel Reasoning question messes with a type of logic that you're used to dealing with, identify how it's changing things up, what's logically relevant about it, and then stop worrying about the logical implications! You don't need to analyze the validity of the argument if you can clearly define the logical structure of it—finding the answer that has that same structure is enough to find the right answer.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is certain ("will not win"), whereas the conclusion of the stimulus was probabilistic ("highly unlikely"), so we can quickly eliminate this answer.