PrepTest 122

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Employee at Compujack-most-Computer programmers
Computer programmers-most-Excellent salaries
Conclusion - Employee at Compujack-some-Excellent salary

Answer Anticipation:
This Flawed Parallel Reasoning question includes quantifier statements. As such, the flaw is almost certainly that it messes up the inference that can be drawn from those statements.

Which is good news, because even if you aren't rock solid on making those inferences (Why aren't you? You should be—go practice!), you can find the correct answer by looking at the structure and finding the one that matches:
A-most-B
B-most-C
Therefore - A-some-C

That said, the flaw here is that two most statements can be validly combined to form a some statement, but only when they have the same first term. They don't "chain together" as this argument tries to do.

Answer Explanation:
Gardener-most-Great deal of patience
Molly's classmates-most-Gardeners
Therefore - Molly's classmates-some-Great deal of patience
This argument has two most premises that it attempts to chain together to form a some conclusion, so it has the same flaw as the stimulus, making this the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Even if you don't know your rules for combining quantified statements (shame on you!), you can still get a question like this right just by mapping out the connections and then finding the answer that does the same.

Incorrect. Without diagramming this out, we can eliminate it because the conclusion is that some of Molly's classmates "could" have a great deal of patience—that's weaker than the stimulus stating that at least one employee "must" receive an excellent salary.

Incorrect. The conclusion here brings in terms from each of the most statements into the same term of the some statement when it says "at least one of Molly's classmates who is a gardener", so it's not parallel.

Incorrect. The second most statement here has a first term with two pieces (Molly's classmates, gardner), one of which is the first term in the opening premise, so this answer isn't parallel.

Incorrect. This argument is valid—the two most statements share the same first term (Molly's classmates), so they can be combined to form the some conclusion seen here.