PrepTest 141

Incorrect. The conditional premise here isn't about the two separate entities (Qiu and Caldwell), so it doesn't match the stimulus where that premise was about Suarez and Anderson.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
not Suarez most qualified → Anderson most qualified
Therefore: not Suarez wins AND Most qualified wins → Anderson wins

Answer Anticipation:
The argument uses conditional logic as the base, so we should diagram that out and find the answer that matches it. There are some subtleties here in that the terms in the conclusion are implication from the premise, not direct restatements, but if we have a clear view of that heading into the answers, then it shouldn't be an issue to spot it and find the right one!

Specifically, we're looking for a conditional premise and conclusion, where the sufficient condition of the conclusion is an AND statement. The sufficient condition of the conclusion should, by implication, ensure that one outcome is ruled out and, based on the premise, guarantee the other outcome.

Answer Explanation:
not Dillon lowest bidder → Ramsey lowest bidderTherefore: Lowest bidder AND not Dillon → RamseyThis answer follows the same logical pattern as the stimulus, so it's the correct answer. The sufficient condition of the conclusion rules out Dillon as the winner and the lowest bidder, thus guaranteeing that Ramsey is the lowest bidder and, based on the condition that the lowest bidder won the contract, the winner of that contract.

Key Takeaway:
Conditional logic in a Parallel Reasoning question should make you jump for joy! These structures provide specific elements that you can look for and match. And as you get better at conditional logic, you can diagram fewer answer choices as you note mismatches without needing to write them out.

Incorrect. The conditional premise here is about who will win the contract, not who is the lowest bidder, so it doesn't match the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer connects Holihan not being the lowest bidder to Easton also not being the lowest bidder. That's a different relationship than in the stimulus, which establishes that either Suarez or Anderson is the lowest bidder.

Incorrect. The conclusion of this argument rules out both established options as those who will get the contract, which is different from the stimulus where the conclusion's conditional led to a necessary condition about one individual winning the election. That's a different structure, so this answer is wrong.