Logical reasoning PrepTest 139 · Section 4 · Question 10

Incorrect. There's no second premise here that establishes an equivalency as there was in the stimulus. Additionally, the conclusion is that two things are different, not that one is "more" than the other. Both are independent reasons to eliminate this answer.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Fuel efficiency test - Car X was driven in a more fuel efficient manner than Y, but they had the same efficiency, so Car X is more fuel efficient.

Answer Anticipation:
This stimulus is steeped in comparisons, so we should frame our anticipation around that and find an answer that has the same structure.

Here, two things are said to be equivalent in some metric. However, that measurement was done so that there should have been a difference, so there must actually be a difference between the two things.

Answer Explanation:
This argument starts by establishing that two things (hamsters) are equivalent in some metric (weight gain). However, it then establishes that the measurement was done so that one thing should (our hamster) should have been different (ate more), and so there must be a difference between them (calories burnt). This answer follows the same general comparative structure as the stimulus, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
For Parallel Reasoning questions, identifying any common type of reasoning can lead to an anticipation that will help you analyze the answer. Identify where these elements of logic show up and find an answer that matches that.

Incorrect. This argument lacks a premise establishing an equivalency between the two types of riding.

Incorrect. This answer includes only one premise, with the conclusion bringing up the equivalency ("in those cases . . . ").

Incorrect. This answer includes only one premise, and it jumps from a non-comparative premise ("high level") to a relative conclusion ("lower level").