PrepTest 142

Incorrect. Legislator → Politician
Legislator-most- . . . and we should eliminate this answer since the sufficient condition of the conditional is shared with the most statement. That's different from the stimulus (and, in fact, that means these two premises do lead to a valid inference, just not the one this argument makes—the valid inference is that some politicians have run for office).

Incorrect. Both premises in this argument are most statements, so it doesn't align with the conditional/most premises from the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer has a some conclusion and a some premise, not matching most statements, so we can rule it out.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
On River St.:
Brick house → Front yard
Front yard-most-Two stories
Therefore: Brick house-most-Two stories

Answer Anticipation:
First, instead of including River St. in each conditional, we just established up front that we were just dealing with houses on that street.

Next, once diagrammed, we can see that this argument is making an inference by combining a conditional with a most statement. While there are ways that a conditional and a most can be combined, this isn't one of them (all cases involve the overlap being between the sufficient condition of the conditional and either term in the most statement).

Since this argument is flawed in that it makes an illegal inference from a conditional and most statement, we should head into the answers and look for an argument that follows the same pattern.

Answer Explanation:
Public servant-most-not Run for office
Legislator → Public servant
Therefore: Legislator-most-not Run for office
This argument follows the same pattern and thus commits the same flaw.

Key Takeaway:
Knowing that the flaw was related to the way that the conditional and most statement were combined, we were able to quickly eliminate 3 answers that didn't have the same pattern of conditionals and quantifiers. Using this on Parallel and Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions can narrow down your options quickly—you should rejoice when you see quantifiers in either type of Parallel Reasoning question.

Incorrect. Both of these premises are most statements, so it doesn't match the stimulus.