Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 1 · Question 25

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
When TV is taken away, everyone reads more. When it's brought back, everyone reads less. Thus, TV reduces childhood reading.

Answer Anticipation:
While it's not too common for Parallel Reasoning questions to be largely driven by a particular common flaw, it does happen—as here.

The argument uses two inverse correlations—when TV is gone, reading goes up; when it's back, reading goes down—to reach a causal conclusion. While it is flawed, that's less important than noting the specific elements here, as not just any correlation/causation flaw answer will do (and we assume there will be a few traps in that vein).

Instead, we need an answer that shows those two inverse correlations to reach the causal conclusion, as that's a specific relationship that carries logical weight.

Answer Explanation:
This answer features two correlations that are the inverse of each other, and then uses them to justify a causal conclusion. Same elements as the stimulus; same flaw. This is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
When a Parallel Reasoning question commits a classic flaw, looking for an answer that does the same is a great way to quickly drive to the correct answer.

Incorrect. While arguably this answer has the same inverse correlations as the stimulus (eating candy disrupts appetite; not eating candy leads to hunger), the conclusion isn't a causal relationship between candy and hunger, but a causal relationship between healthy meals and eating candy. Since the causal relationship doesn't parrot the correlations, this answer isn't parallel.

Incorrect. This answer has causal premises, not correlative ones, so it's not parallel.

Incorrect. At least the first example given here is causal ("as a result"), so it's not parallel with the correlative premises from the stimulus.

Incorrect. While this answer does have two correlative premises, they're the reverse of each other, not the inverse of each other. Close, but no cigar!