Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 3 · Question 25

Incorrect. There's no "likelihood" language in this answer choice, so we can eliminate it without digging in too deeply.

Incorrect. There's no "likelihood" language in this answer choice, either, so we can make a second quick elimination!

Incorrect. Yet another answer choice without the "likelihood" language needed to match the stimulus, so yet another elimination.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Independent arbitration avoids strike → Both sides agree to accept arbitrator's decision as binding
Past experience - The union is unlikely to agree to that
Conclusion - A strike is likely

Answer Anticipation:
This argument sets up a requirement for a phenomenon (strike) to be avoided, and it says that the requirement is unlikely to be met based on past experience, so the phenomenon is likely to happen.

There are a few key elements in this argument we can look for to make eliminations, and some that will have to show up in the correct answer.

We'll need to see that conditional rule setting out a requirement for something (here, the strike being avoided). Then, it'll need to be shown that, based on past experience, there is a likelihood that the condition won't be met, and the conclusion then has to say that, similarly, there is a likelihood that the thing won't happen. Those quantifiers will likely be easy to spot, along with the conditional. The relationships should only be dug into once we've seen that the answer otherwise conforms to these elements.

Answer Explanation:
This is the only answer with probabilistic language, so it's almost certainly correct. Here, a requirement is set up (sponsors keeping Lopez hydrated). It's then established that in the past ("known to be") the sponsors usually don't accomplish that requirement ("poor at"), and then it concludes that it probably won't happen in this future situation. Same logical force, same flaw, same structure—we have our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Look at all the mileage we got out of looking to match the logical force of the stimulus! When you start looking for these elements to match in Parallel Reasoning questions, you'll be surprised how many answers can be quickly eliminated.

Incorrect. A final answer that can be eliminated because the conclusion isn't about a likelihood.