Logical reasoning PrepTest 157 · Section 2 · Question 17

This conclusion sounds a lot like the passage's conclusion! It matches, "if you want a high A, use B," with "income" standing in for "A" (rather than "tax refund") and "invest heavily in the stock market" standing in for "B" (rather than "use a tax preparation service"). This matches the passage's conclusion, so we should examine the premises to see if they also match.

The premises sound a lot like "A is, on average, higher for those who use B than for those who don't use B," too. In this answer choice, we learn that those who invest heavily in the stock market (i.e., "use B") have, on average, higher incomes (i.e., higher "As") than those who do not invest (i.e., "do not use B"). So, this argument's premises and conclusion match the passage's.

And, of course, this is the same causation flaw as the one committed in the passage. Just because people who invest in the stock market have higher incomes doesn't mean that investing causes their incomes to be higher. There could be another explanation for their higher incomes — people who invest could be more money-motivated than those who do not, so they pursue jobs with higher salaries. This parallels the causation flaw in the passage, so we can select (A) and advance to the following question.

This conclusion doesn't quite sound like the passage's conclusion. Rather than saying, "if you want a high A, use B," it says, "if you do A, use B." So, rather than setting a goal that "B" can accomplish, this answer choice specifies a group to which "B" applies. So, this answer choice's conclusion doesn't imply a cause-and-effect relationship, unlike the passage. This is enough reason to eliminate (B) without reviewing the premises.

If we reviewed the rest of the argument, we'd also see that it doesn't parallel the passage's flaw. Rather than comparing two groups, this answer choice's premise shows that using one thing usually causes something to occur (using an in-house print shop usually causes companies to produce publications more efficiently). Because this answer choice puts the cause-and-effect relationship in the premise, it doesn't commit the same causation flaw as the passage.

This conclusion sounds a bit like the passage's conclusion, as long as we modify "high A" to "low A." So, it resembles, "if you want a low A, use B," with "life insurance premium" standing in for "A" (rather than "tax refund") and "reduce risk of lung cancer" standing in for "B" (rather than "use a tax preparation service"). Since this matches the passage's conclusion, we should examine the premises to see if they also match.

Once we review the rest of the argument, we'll see that it doesn't parallel the passage's flaw. Rather than comparing two groups, this answer choice's premise shows that using one thing usually causes two things to occur (quitting smoking causes one to have a lower life insurance premium and lower risk of lung cancer). This answer choice commits a causation flaw (A causes B and C, so B must cause C). But it's not the same type of causation flaw as the one in the passage (A is higher for those who do B, so B must cause A).

This conclusion doesn't match the passage's. It doesn't say, "if you want a high A, use B." Instead, it says, "if you have A, use B." So, rather than setting a goal that "B" can accomplish, this answer choice specifies a group to which "B" applies. In other words, this answer choice's conclusion doesn't imply a cause-and-effect relationship, unlike the passage. That's reason enough to eliminate (D) without reviewing the premises.

If we reviewed the rest of the argument, we'd see that it doesn't parallel the passage's flaw either. Rather than comparing two groups, this answer choice's premise shows a particular group usually finds something helpful (those with larger-than-average estates usually find having their own lawyers helpful). This argument doesn't express any cause-and-effect relationships, so it doesn't commit the same causation flaw as the passage.

This conclusion sounds a bit like the passage's conclusion, although it's a negative (rather than a positive) statement. It implies a cause-and-effect relationship — that purchasing things from telemarketers causes telemarketers to call you. This is close enough to the passage's conclusion, so we should examine the premises to see if they also match.

Once we review the rest of the argument, we'll see that it doesn't parallel the passage's flaw. Rather than comparing two groups, this answer choice's premise says that purchasing things from telemarketers actually causes them to call you in the future. So, this doesn't commit a correlation-to-causation flaw. In fact, it's a reasonable argument!