Logical reasoning PrepTest 131 · Section 2 · Question 16

Incorrect. Squeeze toy AND not Designed for cat → Safe for infants
Squeeze toy → . . . and we're out. In the original, the second conditional statement had a new term as a sufficient condition.

Incorrect. There are two exceptions to the conditional rule here, so we can rule this answer choice out immediately.

Incorrect. Visa AND not Issued through diplomatic channels → Assigned by this office
Visa permit → Visa br /> . . . And we're out. This answer goes straight into the conclusion without establishing a nonconditional premise.

Incorrect. Winter garment AND not Designer → Sale
Shirt → not Designer . . . and we're out. The second conditional didn't connect to the exception to the rule.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Poets AND not Only epigrams → Wit
Lyrical composer → Poet
Azriel: not Only epigrams AND Lyrical composer
Therefore: Wit

Answer Anticipation:
This Parallel Reasoning question is all about the conditional logic, so let's take some time to make sure we got it right.

That first statement brings up a conditional that has an exception. Exceptions to a rule highlight the only place where the rule breaks down. In other words, the rule applies to all scenarios where the exception doesn't happen. That's why we diagrammed the rule the way we did—if you're a poet and you don't fall into the exception, then the rule applies and you have wit.

The next statement is straightforward, but the next statement about Azriel we changed up a bit. It states that he does not write epigrams, which guarantees that he doesn't write only epigrams, and we diagrammed it out to match with the conditional rule.

With that done, we can see that this argument is valid, and it takes the form:
A AND B → C
D → A
B and D
Therefore: C

We should look for that first conditional rule with an exception to hopefully make some quick eliminations, and then we'll have to work through the rest of the arguments to see if they match up.

Answer Explanation:
Residential building AND not Built last year → Original fire code
Townhouse → Residential building
Bloom House: Townhouse AND not Built last year
Therefore: Original fire code
This answer mirrors the original, so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
When you're dealing with a Parallel Reasoning question that features conditional logic, it can be helpful to identify elements that will be quick to spot and can be used to make eliminations—quantifiers and AND/OR statements, in particular. Unfortunately, as here, this will sometimes not lead to many eliminations. When you have to work through the diagram for the answers, be sure to jump out as soon as you can find a mismatch to save time.