Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 4 · Question 21

Incorrect. If this answer's conclusion had a sufficient condition of the Gupta's next pet not being a fish, then it'd be correct. However, since it talks about what that pet will be instead of what it won't be, it doesn't match the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer goes wrong in the conclusion by reversing the logic from the premises, which is a flaw not present in the stimulus:
Gupta family pet → Fish OR Parrot
Parrot-most-Very noisy
Therefore: Very noisy → Probably a parrot
Additionally, the conclusion is about pets they have owned, not that they will own, so it doesn't make the same jump from the past to the future.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't jump from the past pet history of the Gupta's to a future pet, so it doesn't have that same flaw and can be eliminated.

Incorrect. Very close! However, the conclusion's sufficient condition rules out the type of pet that is present in the most statement, so it isn't parallel to the stimulus. This answer instead commits an illegal negation.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Song Amanda wrote → Blues OR Punk
Punk-most-not More than 3 chords
Therefore: Amanda's next song not Blues → Probably not More than 3 chords

Answer Anticipation:
The heavily conditional/quantified nature of this argument should have led you to diagram it out and focus on those elements in the answer choices. We've got quite a few things to look out for—the conditional, the OR statement, the most statement, and the conditional conclusion with a "probably" in it.

Additionally, the argument has a flaw to it, and one related to a question only a few back! Again, we see information about the past ("has ever written") used to draw a conclusion about the future ("the next song Amanda writes"). The correct answer should similarly have this flaw.

Answer Explanation:
Gupta family pet → Fish OR Parrot
Parrot-most-Very noisy
Therefore: Gupta's next pet not Fish → Probably very noisy
Same structure, same jump from past to future, and same quantifiers—this answer has all the elements, flaws, and structure to match the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
This stimulus had many elements that needed to match up, which usually results in some quick eliminations. Here, the logical force ("probably") and quantifiers ("most") did match up for the most part, preventing some easy eliminations. However, noting the jump from the past to the future would have helped to cut out a few answers, and then it was a matter of seeing where the other elements didn't follow the same structure of the stimulus—notably in the arrangement of the elements in the conclusion.