PrepTest 127

Incorrect. The premise and conclusion are both about animals that must devote most of their energy to finding food, so there's no similar jump from a group to the out group as in the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Movies with well-known actors often make a lot of money, so movies without well-known actors are unlikely to make a lot of money.

Answer Anticipation:
While this stimulus doesn't feature conditional language, it does feature an illegal negation. A certain group (movies with A-listers) is associated with a certain characteristic (making money), and from that the argument concludes that things not in that group (movies without A-listers) are unlikely to have that characteristic. Let's find an answer that makes the same jump.

Answer Explanation:
A certain group (gardens with bee balm) is associated with a certain characteristic (abundant crops), and from this the argument concludes that things not in that group (gardens without bee balm) are unlikely to have that characteristic (usually don't produce abundant crops). This answer has the same illegal negation as the stimulus, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
While not all elements of logic in a stimulus need to be replicated in the correct answer of a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question, logical force very often is. Why? Because the logical force of the conclusion is usually related to the flaw. Categorical conclusions are usually flawed because of their strength. Invalid conclusions with moderate modality ("usually", "likely") would frequently be valid if they were weaker. And conclusions with weak strength ("might", "some") that are flawed for other reasons would usually also be flawed if that strength were stronger. As such, always pay attention to the conclusion's strength, even in Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions.

Incorrect. This argument doesn't jump from a group to the out group, so it doesn't match the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer is arguably valid—if something is helpful in teaching something, then lacking that thing might very well sometimes make teaching it more difficult. Note the difference in degree between the stimulus and this answer—the stimulus concludes something is "unlikely" to happen, whereas this answer is about something sometimes possible being more difficult. Such a weak conclusion almost can't help but be valid since so little information would need to be established for it to hold true.

Incorrect. Each statement in this argument is about painters who understand perspective, so it doesn't have the same inversion as the stimulus.