PrepTest 133

Incorrect. The conclusion in the stimulus is that the necessary condition of the conditional was inevitable. This answer states that it won't happen. Regardless of where the argument goes wrong, that mismatch is enough to eliminate this answer without a full diagram.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't have a premise connecting the two sufficient conditions; rather, it establishes one as definitely happening. That's a different argument structure, so we can eliminate this answer.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Global warming continues OR not Pesticide use expanded → Global malaria incidence increase
Pesticide contributes to global warming
Therefore - Global malaria incidence will increase

Answer Anticipation:
The argument starts out by establishing a conditional that has an OR sufficient condition that guarantees an increase in the global incidence of malaria. It then moves on to a causal relationship ("contributes to") that connects the two sufficient conditions, so we should dig in to see how these statements interact to understand a bit about the logic.

That causal relationship says that pesticide use contributes to global warming. In other words, all else equal, if pesticide use increases, so will global warming. So if the second optional conditional isn't met (pesticide use is expanded), then global warming may go up, triggering the other sufficient condition and guaranteeing the outcome. If, on the other hand, pesticide use doesn't increase, then that sufficient condition is triggered, and the necessary condition is likely guaranteed.

The argument then concludes that an increase in the global incidence of malaria is inevitable, based on what it views as a guarantee that at least one of the sufficient conditions will be met. You can dig in to see if that's the case, but this is a Parallel Reasoning question, so the correct answer will likely mirror those connections and we won't need to know if it's valid or not:
A OR B → C
not B contributes to A
Therefore—C

(Note: The argument isn't valid because pesticide use contributes to global warming, it doesn't guarantee it. Therefore, it's not inevitable that at least one of the sufficient conditions will be met, so it's not inevitable that the necessary condition will come to pass.)

Answer Explanation:
Interest rates increase OR not Demand for consumer goods declines → Inflation rises
Demand for consumer goods declines contributes to interest rates increasingTherefore—Inflation will rise
This argument has the same structure of establishing a conditional with an OR premise, connecting those two terms in a causal relationship, and concluding that the necessary condition is therefore inevitable ("will"), so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Mastery over conditional logic will help you eliminate answer choices in Parallel Reasoning questions that feature it. The basic level is diagramming everything out to see what matches. The second level is identifying key elements that you can use to eliminate answers—for example, eliminating (E) because it has an AND sufficient condition instead of an OR. The third level is seeing how shared terms show up in different places and comparing that repetition to the stimulus, as we did with answer choice (A) here. If you're not there yet, keep working at it!

Incorrect. The second premise here introduces a new term—the use of aerosols—but the stimulus doesn't, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The conditional premise here has an AND sufficient condition, so it isn't parallel.