Logical reasoning PrepTest 138 · Section 3 · Question 24

Incorrect. Cat → Fur
Cat → not Fish
Therefore - Fish → Fur. So close, but that last term would need to be the negated version of the necessary condition of the first conditional to match the stimulus.

Incorrect. We can jump out as soon as we see that "some"—there's no equivalent quantifier in the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Balcony → Fireplace
Balcony → not 1 bedroom
Therefore - 1 bedroom → not Fireplace

Answer Anticipation:
This Flawed Parallel Reasoning question is pure conditional logic. There's an illegal negation in here (take the contrapositive of the second conditional to see that the argument chains that together with the negation of the first), but since this argument has a conditional logic flaw, we can match the structure instead of worrying about the specific type of conditional logic flaw:

A → B
A → not C
Therefore - C → not B

Answer Explanation:
Cat → Fur
Cat → not Dog
Therefore - Dog → not Fur
This matches our diagram from the stimulus perfectly, so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
When a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question features a conditional logic flaw, spend less time worrying about the specific conditional logic flaw, and more time getting your diagram down. That'll be the fastest way to work through the answer choices!

Incorrect. Cat → not Dog
Dog . . . And we're out, as this second conditional doesn't have the same sufficient condition as the first one.

Incorrect. Dog → Mammal
Fish . . . And we're out, as this second conditional doesn't have the same sufficient condition as the first one.