PrepTest 144

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Three kids used a program and became successful college students, so other kids who use the program can expect the same outcome.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of this argument assumes a causal relationship between using VIVVY and becoming a successful university student, so we should check to see if there's a correlation/causation jump.

And there is! The argument finds 3 children who went through the program and became successful college students. From that, it assumes the program was the cause of that success, so that other students who go through the program will similarly see such success.

Another angle? 3 examples is way too few to draw such a broad conclusion. You could view this as part of the correlation/causation flaw (there's not enough correlation established to support even a weak causal statement), or as a sampling flaw.

Either way, the correct answer should draw a causal conclusion because of a very small correlation.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes a weak correlation between carrying a good luck charm and winning the lottery (the same list of 3), and it then concludes that good luck charms cause one to win the lottery. That's the same flaw as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Whenever a broad conclusion is based on less than a handful of examples, the correct answer will probably highlight that that sample is too small or that it's too weak a correlation to lead to a causal conclusion. In a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question, the correct answer will need to be based on a similarly limited set of examples.

Incorrect. First, the conclusion here is that something shouldn't be expected. Second, this answer splits the 3 examples into two groups (those who did and didn't get food poisoning). Those two differences are individually enough to invalidate this answer.

Incorrect. This answer is flawed, but it has a conditional logic flaw (there could be other rules determining more layoffs), so it's not parallel to the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer also features conditional logic, and it also has a conditional logic flaw (routinely exceeding the speed limit is sufficient, not necessary, to get a speeding ticket).

Incorrect. This answer applies what is true of "most" students at a university to three specific examples—that's not a correlation/causation jump. (This would be more of a degree shift or a whole to part jump.)