Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 1 · Question 20

Incorrect. The conclusion here introduces a new idea—not going to work, which isn't the same as doing something one isn't allowed to do—so we can rule it out without diagramming it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Meet sales quota → Experienced
not Meet sales quota
Therefore - not Experienced

Answer Anticipation:
This argument establishes a conditional, and then it uses the absence of the sufficient condition to conclude the absence of the necessary condition. That's an illegal negation, so let's find an answer that commits the same flaw:
A → B
not A
Therefore - not B

Answer Explanation:
Take this class → Music lover
(Hillary) not Take this class
Therefore - (Hillary) not Music lover
This argument has the same illegal negation as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Getting better at diagramming conditional statements doesn't just mean that you'll be faster and more accurate at diagramming those statements. It also will build up your ability to get a sense for when answers are right or wrong without diagramming it out, as we did for some answers here. You should still diagram the answer you believe to be correct to confirm it, but you can save some time by skipping that step on some answers you have reason to believe are wrong.

Incorrect. Enjoy Atlantic in midwinter → Oceanographer
not Oceanographer . . . and we can eliminate this answer since it negates the necessary condition in the premise. This answer is a valid application of the contrapositive, not an illegal reversal.

Incorrect. This argument is valid—if redwoods are only in the northern latitudes, then finding one guarantees you're in the north.

Incorrect. There's no negation of the terms in the conditional here, so we can eliminate it without diagramming it. (If you did, you'd see it's an illegal reversal, not an illegal negation.)