Logical reasoning PrepTest 143 · Section 3 · Question 9

Incorrect. This answer brings up knowledge of two different specifics—the stimulus only has one specific scenario.

Incorrect. This answer establishes that the refrigerator is almost empty, so it's not relying on a subjective assessment.

Incorrect. The conditional rule in this argument has a necessary condition that deals with a subjective assessment—if the voters "are concerned with" crime. As such, a subjective premise could establish that. Additionally, the premise meant to interact with the conditional doesn't use the same terms, so this is a very different argument from the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer features an illegal reversal, whereas the stimulus attempted to apply a contrapositive. The premise here also establishes that something was found, not that it wasn't.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Life ever on the Moon → Signs of life on Moon
We've looked and haven't found any signs of life on the Moon
Therefore, not Life ever on Moon

Answer Anticipation:
The argument starts by setting up a conditional rule. From there, it attempts to show that the necessary condition hasn't been met, leading to a conclusion that the sufficient condition also isn't met—in other words, it attempts to apply the contrapositive.

However, the premise negating the necessary condition doesn't actually rule it out—instead, it says that the best evidence available rules it out. Humanity's numerous excursion to the Moon failing to find signs of life isn't enough to establish that there aren't any such signs—that's a jump from a subjective assessment to an objective one—and so the argument has a flaw that should also be matched in the correct answer.

Let's find an answer that similarly attempts to apply the contrapositive of a conditional to a specific scenario but relies on a subjective observation in doing so.

Answer Explanation:
This argument sets up a conditional rule (Army planning to attack → Troop movement), and then attempts to apply the contrapositive (no troop movement means to plan to attack). However, the premise triggering the contrapositive is subjective—it's about what intelligence reports show, not whether troop movement is actually happening. Therefore, this argument is parallel with the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
Part of mastering Parallel Reasoning questions is being able to identify elements in arguments that need to match up. What elements are they? Anything that we see in other question types as being logically relevant. That's a big list, which can be scary, but it's actually a good thing—it gives you more things to look out for and, thus, more reasons to eliminate incorrect answers!