PrepTest 119

Incorrect. This argument goes from residents to a group of residents to other residents. It's this shifting between the different groups that makes it flawed (since the group of residents wants local park improvements, it's already the case that they share interests with other members, so it's not required that they share interests with even more members).

Incorrect. This answer features a reversal of the conditional. There, friends taking the artist seriously is a necessary condition, but the argument establishes that (and a part of the sufficient condition) to conclude (another part) of the sufficient condition. No such reversal happens in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This argument doesn't reach a conclusion as to what Herbert will do, which is what the conditional statement is about. Therefore, this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. This answer commits an illegal reversal, so it's not parallel to the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Everyone else doesn't litter → Tanya refrains from littering
None of Tanya's friends litter
Therefore - Tanya doesn't litter

Answer Anticipation:
This argument establishes a conditional rule and then tries to apply it to a specific case. When that happens, the flaw is usually related to the premise that supposedly meets the sufficient condition falling short somehow.

Here, the sufficient condition to justify the conclusion (Tanya doesn't litter) is that everyone else refrains from littering. However, the premise that the argument relies on to establish this condition establishes only that her friends don't litter. Unless Tanya is friends with literally every other person on the planet, that premise misses the mark on establishing the sufficient condition.

So we should look for an answer that similarly establishes a conditional and attempts to apply it to a specific case, but instead of establishing the sufficient condition, it brings up that a subset that's potentially skewed meets that condition.

Answer Explanation:
All customers like food → Exceptional restaurant
Everyone Sheryl asked likes the food
Therefore - Exceptional restaurant
This argument establishes a conditional that has a broad sufficient condition, establishes that a subset of the group in the sufficient condition meets the criterion established there, and then concludes the necessary condition. That's the same flaw as the stimulus, where a subset of the group in the sufficient condition meeting it was assumed to be enough to allow the conditional to apply.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional logic-based arguments are generally flawed for one of three reasons:
(1) An illegal reversal/negation
(2) A term shift between two statements in the conditional chain, or between the chain and a term in the conclusion
(3) The conditional is applied to a specific situation without establishing that the sufficient condition is met
If you check for these three flaws, you're almost certain to find what's wrong with any conditional logic-based argument.