PrepTest 130

Incorrect. The stimulus was causal, but this answer is conditional, so we can rule it out as it features completely different logic.

Incorrect. Another argument that features conditional logic, so we can rule this answer out for that reason as well.

Incorrect. This answer does deal with causality and, specifically, the inability to prove a causal connection. However, it doesn't feature a premise that's parallel to the first premise in the stimulus, establishing that an event had two causes. And here, it shifts from two causes not being conclusively provable to a conclusion that conclusively rules those causes out. That's a shift in certainty, which is a separate flaw from the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
An asteroid caused - 1) Long-term climate change; 2) a North American firestorm
We can't prove that climate change killed the triceratops
We can't prove that the firestorm killed the triceratops
Conclusion - We can't prove the asteroid killed the triceratops

Answer Anticipation:
This argument establishes that a certain event had (at least) two causes. It then establishes that neither of those things can be proven to have caused another phenomenon (triceratops extinction). From that, it concludes that the event can't be proven to be the cause of the phenomenon.

If you're not seeing why this argument is flawed, that's actually not too much of a problem here! Identifying this structure should be enough to get to the right answer—we just need to find one that has the same structure:
A caused B and C
We can't show B caused D
We can't show C caused D
So we can't show A caused D

As far as the flaw is concerned, there are two related issues here. First, it could be the case that the asteroid impact had another cause that can be shown to have caused the triceratops extinction. Second, it's possible that, while it can't be shown that climate change or firestorms caused the triceratops extinction, it can be shown that only one of those two things could have caused it. In either case, the argument is failing to consider all possibilities.

Answer Explanation:
Basement flooding cause damage to furnace and short in electrical system
Fire investigators can't prove the damage to the furnace caused the fire
Fire investigators can't prove the short in the electrical system caused the fire
So we can't claim that the basement flooding caused the fire
This is the same structure as the stimulus, so it's the correct answer. This answer similarly assumes that there's not another effect of the water damage that can be shown to have caused the fire, and that it can't be shown that it must have been one of these two effects that caused the fire.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever an argument is discussing phenomena and potential causes/explanations, there's a good chance that it will be flawed in that it fails to consider one potential explanation/cause.

Incorrect. This stimulus features less certainty ("good reason") compared to the first statement of the stimulus, and it features two causal statements that chain together. Therefore, it's not parallel.