PrepTest 121

Incorrect. This answer doesn't establish that it's "inevitable" the book will be checked out—just that it's possible.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
There is no reason to protect species from extinction since all species will just go extinct eventually anyway.

Answer Anticipation:
Notice how we phrased our Summary—it incorporates the phrasing of the question stem so that we can more easily find the parallel answer.

Here, the argument concludes that there is no reason to try to protect endangered species from extinction. Why not? Because all species go extinct eventually anyway. So since an outcome is eventually inevitable, there's no reason to try to stop it, essentially. We should find an answer that matches this flawed pattern of reasoning. (Which is very much in the vein of, "Why make your bed? You're just going to sleep in it again anyway.")

Answer Explanation:
This answer follows the same pattern—there's no reason to try to prevent an outcome (a car breaking down, through preventative maintenance) because that outcome is inevitable (the car won't last forever). This answer is therefore correct.

Key Takeaway:
Notice how many of these answers were eliminated because of a shift from "inevitable" in the stimulus to something weaker in the answer choice. These words that convey logical strength or certainty are relevant to the logic of arguments, and so you should always pay attention to them when they show up in a question!

Incorrect. This answer is about the rarity of a triggering event ("earthquakes occur only very infrequently), not the inevitability of an outcome.

Incorrect. They can occur, but it's not inevitable that they will occur, so this answer isn't parallel.

Incorrect. The plants are likely to die, but they're not guaranteed to die.