PrepTest 142

Incorrect. This answer is attempting to combine a conditional with a some statement, and it does so illegally, so this argument is flawed for a different reason.

Incorrect. The opening statement here isn't really a conditional, but the argument does try to apply it. However, it applies it to a case where the "sufficient" condition isn't met, concluding neither is the necessary condition, so this would be an illegal negation if anything.

Incorrect. If you squint, this answer choice has a conditional statement. However, it has an OR necessary condition that isn't met, so it's attempting to apply the contrapositive. The flaw in this argument is a relative language one—Isabel could still be quite ill but much better than she was, and thus the medicine could have alleviated her symptoms.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Immunity to microorganism infection → Exposure to microorganism doesn't lead to symptoms
Many people are exposed to staph without developing symptoms
Therefore: Many people are immune to staph

Answer Anticipation:
We end the section with a classic! The argument opens up with a conditional relationship, and then it establishes the necessary condition is present, concluding the sufficient condition. That's an illegal reversal if we ever saw one, so let's find an answer that features the same reversal.

Answer Explanation:
Excessive taxation → Business owners less willing to expand
Business owners recently less willing to expand
Therefore: Excessive taxation
This answer features the same illegal reversal as the stimulus, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
For Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions, there are some answers that could be in play if you squint a bit and give the answer the benefit of the doubt. Here, (B) and (C) weren't really lining up with the argument, but they were in the ballpark if you were trying to make them work. But there's no reason to try to make an answer choice work—if you have to, it's probably wrong. Eliminate anything that you find yourself going out of your way to justify—at worse, you'll have to come back after you eliminate all answers. At best, you'll find an answer you like and not have wasted time on an answer that was wrong!

Incorrect. The premise here isn't really conditional, so the argument can't feature an illegal reversal.