PrepTest 111

Incorrect. This argument is about a prediction of an effect (higher sub rates) based on a cause (higher postal rates), whereas the cause and effect the stimulus relies on both have already happened.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Many people: The population explosion is alarming

Author: The population explosion has been followed by economic growth, so we shouldn't try to stop it.

Answer Anticipation:
The Author of this argument addresses a concern that "many people" have by trying to prove that it's not actually a concern. She does so by suggesting a positive effect of the change behind the concern.

However, the premises don't actually establish that the population growth was the cause of economic growth—they're merely correlated ("has been followed by"). As such, the Author's argument for why the population explosion has been a good thing is reliant on a correlation/causation flaw, and so we should look for an answer that commits the same flaw.

One last note—the conclusion here is a "should not" statement. The vast majority of the time, the correct answer in either type of Parallel question will match up with that recommendation against something.

Answer Explanation:
This answer brings up a correlation—the aggressive behavior of the sales manager, and the increase in sales—and concludes that no action should be taken to stop that behavior. This assumes that the aggressive behavior is causing the increase in sales, thus arguing against stopping it, and so this argument is parallel to the stimulus. It also has the same recommendation against an action as the stimulus.

Key Takeaway:
Knowing key phrases that are strongly related to logic (e.g., "should not") and thus almost always match up in Flawed/Parallel Reasoning questions can be a great way to make quick eliminations in these question types.

Incorrect. There's no supposed causality here, just two options, one of which the author recommends. It also doesn't recommend against something in the conclusion.

Incorrect. Similar to the other wrong answers, there's no correlation/causation jump here, so we can rule this out. It also doesn't recommend against something in the conclusion.

Incorrect. This answer commits a different flaw—a temporal flaw, assuming what has been true will continue to be true in the future. It also doesn't recommend against something in the conclusion, so we can rule this answer out.