Logical reasoning PrepTest 140 · Section 2 · Question 23

Incorrect. This answer doesn't make a prediction about the future based on a past correlation.

Incorrect. The conclusion here ascribes a characteristic to Donna, which isn't a prediction about the future.

Incorrect. This argument is valid since it never shifts between groups and uses premises strong enough to justify the conclusion.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Almost all successful products launched with a huge TV ad campaign, which we're doing for the Vegetaste Burger, guaranteeing its success.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has a conclusion that hints at a very specific flaw. It's making a prediction about what will happen, and this type of conclusion is generally basing that prediction on what has been true in the past.

In this case, the prediction of the future is based on a correlation between "[a]lmost every" successful product and launching with TV ad campaigns. But two issues there. First, there's no indication that successful product launches are driven by TV ad campaigns like they used to be. Second, this correlation doesn't prove that the ads guarantee success—it's likely that many products launched with TV ad campaigns ended up failing. As such, this argument has a bit of an illegal reversal—it establishes that (almost) all successful product launches have an ad campaign, and from that concludes that an ad campaign will result in a successful product launch.

So we should look for an answer that similarly predicts something will happen based on a correlation from the past with a bit of a reversal of that connection.

Answer Explanation:This argument makes a prediction about the future ("will probably be appointed") based on a correlation from the past, and it has a bit of a reversal in stating that the semi-necessary condition (having a Ph.D.) is sufficient to guarantee the outcome—the same flaw as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Harder Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions will throw a few flawed elements into an argument. If you only identify a single one of those elements, you might end up with multiple answer choices that feature it, and you'll need to dig back in to see what secondary flaw is present.

Incorrect. This answer does make a prediction about the future based on a correlation from the past, but it doesn't have the same reversal as the stimulus. There, the argument failed to consider all the unsuccessful products that launched with TV ad campaigns. This answer, however, limits itself to discussing the prior novels of Peninsula Publishing, and since almost all of them were successful, we know only a few weren't.