Logical reasoning PrepTest 152 · Section 1 · Question 25

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
If both H and S supported a proposal, it would have passed. S claims she supported it. It didn't pass. Therefore, H is a liar.

Answer Anticipation:
The premises do allow for a valid conclusion to be drawn—that someone is lying about their support. However, the author concludes that H is the liar. There's just as much evidence that S is the one lying! The correct answer will similarly establish that one of two things must be true, and then erroneously select one as true instead of validly concluding that either could be true.

Answer Explanation:
This argument establishes that two things can't be true at the same time—the accident occurred on Aylmer Street, and Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window. So either the TV news (reporting that the accident happened on Aylmer Street) or the newspaper (reporting that Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window) must be wrong. Then, the author picks one of those as being true, without evidence, matching the error in reasoning of the given argument.

This was a tough answer—the writer of this question did a great job of burying the same flaw in a dissimilar structure!

Key Takeaway:
For Flawed Parallel Reasoning, focus on the flaw, not the structure. While arguments that commit the same flaw tend to have similar structures, there are times where that won't be the case, such as here.

This answer choice doesn't establish two things must be false and then pick one as being the truth.

Since the conclusion here deals with the truth of the statements (if Galindo is correct), it doesn't match an argument that erroneously assumes and concludes one of the two options is correct.

While this answer assumes that the beliefs of a group are true, it doesn't do so at the expense of a different belief. For this answer to match the given argument, it would have to state that Harris believes she doesn't favor these interests, thus setting up a situation where only one of two options can be correct.

This answer doesn't establish that one of two statements must be false. Instead, it assumes that two statements couldn't both be true at the same time, overlooking the possibility that unemployment could decrease overall while increasing in a certain segment of the workforce. Contrast that to the given argument, where based on the proposal's failure, it's certain that one of the two individuals definitively didn't support the proposal.