Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 2 · Question 17

Incorrect. This answer establishes that there is a chance of storms on most days this week, but that doesn't establish that there will be at least one storm, which doesn't match with the premise in the stimulus establishing that there are halogen bulbs at FL.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Halogen lamps-some-On display at FL
On display at FL → Well-crafted
Therefore Ð Halogen lamps-some-Well-crafted

Answer Anticipation:
This argument opens with the main point ("We can be sure that . . . because") before diving into two premises. The conclusion is a some statement and the second premise a conditional, so we can use those to help us find an answer that matches these elements!

You'll note that we didn't dive into that first premise, and the stimulus uses the word "most" whereas we diagrammed it as a some statement. That's because we wanted to make sure that the statement lined up with the conditional in order to allow for a possible inference.

That premise talks about most major manufacturers having halogen bulbs on display at FL. From this, we know that there are some halogen lamps on display at FL (we can't say most are—maybe the smaller manufacturers actually make a wider variety of halogen bulbs, or the major manufacturers only send their high-end bulbs that make up a minority of their models to FL).

Why didn't we diagram it as: Major manufacturer-most-Halogen lamp on display at FL? Because that doesn't share a term with either the conditional premise or the conclusion. The key logical element of this premise is in establishing that some halogen lamps are on display at FL.

So we're looking for an answer that validly combines a conditional and a some statement to form a some conclusion:

A-some-B
B → C
Therefore Ð A-some-C

Answer Explanation:
Melinda's writings-some-Sonnets
Melinda's writings → Disturbing
Therefore Ð Sonnets-some-Disturbing
This argument has the same structure as the stimulus (remember that some statements are reversible, so that first statement can be made to match the stimulus exactly by just flipping it around), so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When a Parallel Reasoning question features quantified statements, find answers that match them! It can be a quick way to narrow down the options.

Incorrect. There's no some premise in this argument, so it's not parallel to the stimulus.

Incorrect. Very tempting! However, the premise here establishes only that the nearby lakes are teeming with healthy fish, not that all of the fish in them are healthy. Maybe a subset of very common fish are healthy, while the minnows are not. As such, this argument is flawed and isn't parallel to the stimulus.

Incorrect. The conclusion here isn't a some statement, so we can eliminate this answer.