PrepTest 140

Incorrect. This argument does establish Rosita's subjective knowledge as a part of the conditional, but it also reaches a conclusion about that subjective knowledge, so it doesn't make the same jump as the stimulus. (This argument is flawed because it commits an illegal reversal.)

Incorrect. This argument doesn't have a premise about someone's subjective belief/knowledge/feeling, so it can't commit the same jump as the stimulus. This answer instead commits an illegal negation.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Prosecutor wanted to charge Frank with embezzlement → Already indictednot Indicted
Therefore: Frank didn't embezzle

Answer Anticipation:
The argument here correctly applies the contrapositive of the conditional statement, so the flaw isn't related to the conditional logic. Instead, it makes a jump from the term in the conditional—the prosecutor wanting to charge Frank—and the conclusion—Frank being guilty of that charge. Even if the Prosecutor didn't want to charge Frank with embezzlement, Frank may still be guilty. This jump between a subjective assessment of the Prosecutor's feelings to an objective statement of innocence is the flaw that the correct answer will need to match. The conditional logic may or may not be present in the correct answer.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice establishes a conditional that includes a sufficient condition about someone's subjective belief. It then correctly applies the contrapositive of the conditional, but jumps to a conclusion about the objective truth. That's the same flaw as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Even when an argument in a Parallel Reasoning or Flawed Parallel Reasoning question with conditional logic doesn't feature a conditional flaw, it can still be helpful to note that. As we saw here, some of the answers will have a conditional flaw, and that's enough to rule them out since the logic isn't parallel.

Incorrect. This argument commits an illegal reversal, so it has a flaw not present in the stimulus, which is enough to rule it out.

Incorrect. This argument jumps between a subjective belief to an objective statement, but that jump is made between the premises, with an objective statement being used to trigger a subjective sufficient condition in a conditional. Since the structure of the argument has the elements of the flaw in different places, this answer doesn't match the stimulus.