PrepTest 144

Incorrect. Here, the expert(s) being consulted aren't the ones to establish the conditional relationship. Instead, they're the ones establishing the sufficient condition of a conditional provided by the author is met. By having different viewpoints present different parts of the argument, this answer isn't parallel to the stimulus.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is certain ("prove that the medication is safe"), not a probability, so this answer can be eliminated right out of the gate.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
J: not Rewritten → Proposal rejected
J is reliable, and not rewritten
Therefore Ð Proposal probably rejected

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts by bringing up someone who states a conditional relationship. That person is then established as being reliable on the topic being discussed, and the sufficient condition of conditional is established as being met. The conclusion then states that the necessary condition is probable, which takes into account that a reliable person can still be wrong!

The answer should follow the same structure:

Opinion: A → B
Opinion is by a relevant expert, and also A
Therefore, probably B

Answer Explanation:
Journal: Company's data accurate → New medication is safe
The journal is reliable on this topic, and the company's data is accurate
Therefore Ð New medication probably safe
This answer establishes a conditional presented by an expert (the Journal) that is then established to be reliable on this topic. The sufficient condition is then established, and the argument concludes the necessary condition is probable. That's the same structure as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument relies on multiple viewpoints (here, Juarez and the author of the argument) to reach the conclusion (not an opposing point, but viewpoints that support the conclusion), make sure that the elements of the argument don't just match logically, but also match with who presented them.

Incorrect. This answer sees the "expert" establish a conditional statement, but also the premise stating that the sufficient condition is met, and it only establishes that the sufficient condition is "probably" met, so this answer isn't parallel.

Incorrect. The "expert" here doesn't establish a conditional relationship, and it also establishes only that the data are :"probably" accurate, so it's not parallel to the stimulus.