PrepTest 143

Incorrect. The conclusion here introduces a new term—traditional food supply—so we can eliminate it without diagramming it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
not Educated population → Economically and politically weak
Educated population → Government displays financial commitment to education
Therefore: Government display financial commitment to education → not Economically and politically weak

Answer Anticipation:
While this argument doesn't have the clearest conditional language, it does have words denoting certainty ("destined," "have," "any"), and conditionals are all about certainty. We diagrammed out the statements, and considering that "Government displays financial commitment to education" is a necessary condition in the premise and a sufficient condition in the conclusion, it's looking like we have an illegal reversal here. We can either work with the statements to justify it or, since we are trying to find an answer that is similarly flawed, we can just work with our diagram and trust it to highlight an answer with the same flaw:

not A → B
A → C
Therefore: C → not B

Note that the not don't have to be in the same place, as long as they carry through. For instance, the correct answer might have A → B and not A → C, but that's fine because one's negated and one isn't, matching the stimulus.

Answer Explanation:
not Empathy → not Good candidate for office
Empathy → Manipulate others
Therefore: Manipulate others → Good candidate for office
The only thing about this answer that doesn't match up perfectly is where the "B" term is negated, but since it flips in this answer the same as in the stimulus, this answer is parallel, and so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
When a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question features a conditional logic flaw, you can "get away" with getting your diagram down and then finding the matching answer—there's no need to formalize which flaw is being committed. However, be certain that there is a conditional logic flaw before proceeding in this manner—while rare, there are some conditional logic-based Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions that feature a different flaw (usually a term shift).

Incorrect. There's only one premise in this argument, so we can rule it out.

Incorrect. Thankfully, that last clause includes a "rarely," which makes the statement weaker than the matching one in the stimulus and thus not a conditional, so we can eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. The "unlikely" in the first clause is suspect, the "probably" in the conclusion is also fatal to this answer, and the conclusion has an AND term ("but" is the same as "and" when used as a linkage in conditional statements). Many reasons to eliminate this answer!