PrepTest 135

Incorrect. This answer reverses the relationship as much as it negates it. It isn't a true contrapositive, but in flipping the argument around, it makes itself not parallel to the stimulus. Additionally, the entire flipped/negated relationship is in the conclusion, whereas the stimulus featured a premise with one half of the relationship and a conclusion with the other.

Incorrect. This argument shifts from a premise about watching contact sports to a conclusion about engaging in contact sports, a shift not present in the stimulus. The conclusion is also essentially a shrug—we can't infer something—whereas the conclusion in the stimulus draws a specific inference.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Utopian book → Find enthusiastic buyers
Gloomy books - not Utopian books
Therefore - Gloomy books - Probably not Find enthusiastic buyers

Answer Anticipation:
That "always" in the opening line suggests that conditional logic is present in this stimulus, but it wouldn't be necessary to diagram this out to spot the flaw here.

With the diagram, we can see that the argument features an illegal negation—utopian books guarantee popularity, so a non-utopian book is concluded to not be popular. But this stimulus could also be viewed through an exclusivity lens.

In any case, we should look for an answer that establishes a relationship, and then concludes that something that falls out of the group in the relationship also doesn't have the feature of that group.

Answer Explanation:
Action films/Films with complicated/dangerous SFX → Expensive
Dramas - not Complicated/dangerous SFX
Therefore - Dramas - not Expensive
This argument has the same exclusivity flaw/illegal negation as the stimulus. It establishes that a group has a characteristic, and then it establishes a different group, concluding that it doesn't have the same characteristic.

Key Takeaway:
When multiple "groups" are discussed in an argument, tracking them is important to tracking the logic. In a Flawed/Parallel Reasoning question, it can also be key to eliminating answers, as where the "groups" show up in the argument needs to match up with the stimulus.

Incorrect. The separate group in this stimulus is adolescents, but the conclusion is about the parents again, so this answer isn't parallel to a stimulus where the gloomy books are the out group and also feature in the conclusion.

Incorrect. This argument is valid—if the self-employed businesspeople aren't government bureaucrats (since bureaucrats aren't self-employed), then they are people who match the description in the conclusion.