Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 1 · Question 9

Incorrect. This argument is valid—the conclusion is the contrapositive of the premise (Firm crust → Right temp; Therefore not Right temp → not Firm crust).

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Child develops healthy bones → Eat enough calcium
Therefore: not Child develops healthy bones → not Eat enough calcium

Answer Anticipation:
The argument establishes a conditional rule, and then it concludes that if the sufficient condition doesn't happen, then neither does the necessary. That's an illegal negation, so let's find an answer that has the same flaw.

Answer Explanation:
Be careful here! In the premise, it states that the requirement for tasting good is having the right amount of flour (Taste good → Right flour). The conclusion then states the negation of that (not Taste good → not Right flour), so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional logic in Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions will usually be flawed—generally because of an illegal negation or reversal.

Incorrect. This answer makes a prediction about the future based on past trends—that the Gambler's Fallacy, a separate flaw. There's also no term that's negated here.

Incorrect. This answer has causality in the argument, and it also doesn't negate any terms.

Incorrect. This answer deals with odds and numbers, which is a different type of logic.