Logical reasoning PrepTest 153 · Section 2 · Question 23

Incorrect. This looks good initially, but when we get to the "otherwise," it's a different kind of argument entirely. We were looking for something supported by an example, not by a scary environmental prediction!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
A critic says journalists need to understand statistics. If they don't, they could mislead the public. An example of flawed interpretation of polling data leading to an erroneous election prediction is given to support the overall conclusion.

Answer Anticipation:
Notice the argument by example. Your correct parallel will have the same structure: A conclusion, a premise citing a risk of disobeying the conclusion's advice, and an example, not necessarily in that order.

Answer Explanation:
This matches perfectly. A "should" conclusion, followed by a potential risk if the advice isn't followed, and supported by an example.

Key Takeaway:
Parallels are strict. You don't need similar subject matter (in fact, that's often a trap) but the structure of the argument must be identical. If the stimulus has an example in it, your correct answer better have one, too.

Incorrect. This looks good at first, giving us a "should" and an "otherwise," but the "otherwise" is a moral principle, not an example. We need an argument by example.

Incorrect. This is a good argument for studying ethics, but not a good parallel for this question. There's no example, again.

Incorrect. This one's doubled up on risks of not taking the conclusion's advice, and it's missing an example.