Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 2 · Question 23

Incorrect. This argument is flawed, but it's flawed because it jumps from a possibility a certainty. The premise states that some people develop this preference (in other words, it's possible). From that, it concludes that it will certainly happen.

Incorrect. This argument relates ownership and time investment, two separate terms. The stimulus sticks to comparing just the sweetness of two different sweeteners, and it assumes the amount of each present in a drink.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A similar amount of A is sweeter than S. Since drinks with S are sweet, drinks with A must be sweeter, and those who drink a lot of A drinks will develop a preference for extremely sweet drinks.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument has an intermediate conclusion and a main conclusion, both of which are flawed.

The intermediate conclusion is that drinks with A must be sweeter than drinks with S (since A is sweeter than S). However, that's a flawed argument, since less A might be used in drinks than S. Maybe soft drink makers target a certain sweetness level and use less A than S to hit it.

The main conclusion is also flawed. Even if we gloss over the flaw in the intermediate conclusion and accept that A drinks are sweeter, it doesn't follow that people who drink them will develop a preference for extremely sweet drinks, for several reasons. While they may be sweeter, A drinks might not be extremely sweet. Also, maybe those who drink A drinks do so for a reason other than liking them more—there might be health reasons. Finally, the order might be off—it's possible these people had a taste for extremely sweet drinks first, and that led them to drink soft drinks sweetened with A.

We'll need to stay flexible and look for arguments that commit either flaw.

Answer Explanation:
The flaw in this argument matches the first flaw noted above. Much like the stimulus assumes a sweeter sweetener will lead to a sweeter drink, this argument assumes that having more valuable coins will lead someone to have more money, ignoring that there might be more of the "lower value" sweetener/coin to overtake the "higher value" one.

Key Takeaway:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions will (rarely) throw an argument with two flaws at you. Sometimes, it'll note this in the question stem and ask you to find an argument that matches both flaws. Other times, it won't explicitly call it out, and a correct answer can match just one of the flaws. Don't rule out an answer that's parallel to one flaw, and watch out for a trap answer that tries (and fails) to parallel the other.

Incorrect. This answer choice tries to feel parallel to the second flaw noted in our anticipation. However, there, someone experiencing something was assumed to lead to a preference. In this argument, a preference is used to conclude something about a person's experiences. It's the reverse of the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer is flawed, but it jumps from someone's experiences to their guesses as to averages across populations. There's nothing like that in the stimulus.