Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 1 · Question 22

Incorrect. This answer compares one subgroup (sports cars) to all other subgroups (most "other cars," not most cars), so it's a mismatch.

Incorrect. This answer compares two types of vegetables on two metrics—it doesn't have a group/subgroup jump.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Food co-ops are a consumer coop. Most consumer coops are cheaper. Therefore, food coops are cheaper.

Answer Anticipation:
It can be hard to spot the flaw in this argument at first, but a good habit to get into is to track the logical force being used in the premises and conclusion. Here, the conclusion doesn't have a qualifier—it "is" cheaper to shop at a food co-op than a supermarket. However, the premises are less certain than that—consumer co-ops (which include food co-ops) are "usually" cheaper than other stores. Whenever the conclusion is more certain than the premise, there's a flaw to be found!

Looking here, we can see that the argument establishes that most of a certain group (consumer coops) has a certain feature (cheaper than other stores). From that, the argument concludes that one subgroup of that group (food co-ops) also has that feature. The correct answer needs to similarly make that jump, so we need an answer that raises a subgroup of a group, establishes most of the group has a feature, and concludes that the subgroup has that feature.

Answer Explanation:
This argument jumps from most of a group (private transportation) having a feature (more pollution) and then concluding that a subgroup (bicycles) has that feature, so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
When you're having issues spotting a flaw, start with the conclusion. Check to see if there are any new terms/concepts that show up there but not in the stimulus. Also check to see if the conclusion has stronger language than the stimulus. Generally, one of these two things will be true.

Incorrect. There's no group/subgroup dynamic, instead comparing healthful and unhealthful food.

Incorrect. The conclusion here states one thing is "best," not better than another as the stimulus does. It also doesn't have the group/subgroup jump as the stimulus, instead comparing food sweetened with sugar and with artificial sweeteners.