Logical reasoning PrepTest 132 · Section 4 · Question 9

Incorrect. In this case, Ben is established as missing the first term in the most statement, not the second. This argument is flawed because it tries to negate a most statement, not flip and negate (contrapose) it.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't have a second premise establishing a nonconditional—instead, it has a conditional premise and a conditional conclusion. This answer is an illegal reversal of a most statement.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
First child early-most-Second child early
Jackie—not Second child early
Therefore: Jackie—Likely not First child early

Answer Anticipation:
While this argument starts with a conditional indicator word ("If"), it then shifts to using quantifier language—"likely" being the same as "most." Since this statement isn't a guarantee, it's not really a conditional. It's a most statement, as we've diagrammed here.

However, when attempting to apply this to Jackie, the argument uses the absence of the second condition (not a necessary condition because not a conditional!) to imply the absence of the first. That's how to apply a contrapositive, but a contrapositive can't be taken for most statements. Since this argument is flawed in that it attempts to use an invalid modification of a most statement, we should look for an answer that does the same:

A-most-B
not B
Therefore, most not A

Answer Explanation:
Box-office hit-most-Sequel box-office hit
Hawkman—not Sequel box-office hit
Therefore: Hawkman not Box-office hit
Same flawed attempt to contrapose a most statement, so this is our answer!

Key Takeaway:
Two things.

First, conditional statements are about guarantees. If the "necessary" condition isn't guaranteed, then it's not really a conditional, and you can't work with the contrapositive. Be careful—as we saw here, (D) included a probability word but still was conditional because an outcome was guaranteed.

Second, most statements can't be transformed. You can take the contrapositive of conditional statements. You can flip/reverse some statements. With most statements, you get what you get.

Incorrect. While the conditional here does have a "likely" in it, it's actually a part of the sufficient condition, and thus this is a conditional. The sufficient condition takes into consideration the likelihood of failure, but if it exists, people not investing in it is guaranteed. Compare that to the stimulus where the first child being born early didn't guarantee the second child would be, too.

Incorrect. The premise here is conditional, so this answer isn't flawed in the same manner as the stimulus. This answer reverses a conditional and downshifts the certainty, but not enough to be valid (Tai possibly going sailing is a valid conclusion here).