Logical reasoning PrepTest 137 · Section 3 · Question 23

Incorrect. Properly built → Every stone supports another stone
Sturdy → Properly built—Jump out here! These two statements do chain together (and the argument is, ultimately, valid).

Incorrect. Play always performed to different audience → not Get same reaction
. . . And jump out before starting to diagram that next statement. It's a nonconditional that triggers the conditional premise, and having two conditional premises was a necessary part of the conditional logic flaw in the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Mutations frequently occur → New adaptations each generation
Survive dramatic changes → New adaptations each generation
Therefore: Mutations frequently occur → Survive dramatic changes

Answer Anticipation:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions that feature conditional logic tend to get that conditional logic wrong. Here, after diagramming out the stimulus, we can see that the argument definitely gets the conditional logic wrong—it tries to chain together two conditionals that have the same necessary condition!

You can spend time trying to figure out exactly what the argument did wrong (it illegally reversed the second statement), or you can just rely on the structure to define the flaw and find the answer that has the same pattern. The latter strategy is just as effective and will probably be faster, so let's use that:

A → B
C → B
Therefore: A → C

Answer Explanation:
Perfectly honest → Always tell truth
Morally upright → Always tell truth
Therefore: Perfectly honest → Morally upright
Same structure, same flaw—this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
If a Flawed Parallel Reasoning stimulus is flawed because it messes up conditional logic, it's often faster (and just as accurate) to just try to match the diagrams instead of trying to figure out what specific flaw is being committed. That said, remember that Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions don't need every element to line up—there are a few examples of correct answers that drop an AND from the stimulus.

Incorrect. Productive herb garden → Well-drained soil
Well-drained soil . . . And we're out—this second conditional will chain together validly with the first (and the argument ends up being valid).

Incorrect. Healthful → Well-balanced
Well-balanced . . . and we're out again—these conditional premises chain together! (This answer is flawed because of a term shift between eating a healthful diet and being healthy.)