PrepTest 147

Incorrect. The conclusion here isn't really conditional. Instead, this argument tries to apply a conditional to a specific case.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is a some statement, not a conditional, so we can rule this out.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is a some statement, so we can rule this answer out.

Incorrect. One word in and we're already eliminating this answer—there was no most statement in the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Eloquent speaker-some-Impress audiences with messages
Obscene speaker → not Eloquent speaker
Therefore: Obscene speaker → not Impress audiences with messages

Answer Anticipation:
There are a few flaws with this, and it can be difficult to pin down exactly how to describe them since the combinations drawn from here involve contrapositives and flawed conditional/quantified inferences. However, we don't have to describe the flaw, we just need to find an answer that makes the same flaw. Since this argument features conditionals and quantified statements, and the flaw is related to them, we can look for an answer that follows the same pattern:

A-some-B
C → not A
Therefore: C → not B

Answer Explanation:
This answer at least has all the right parts, so we should dive in:
Sculptors-some-Produce significant art
Musicians → not Sculptors
Therefore: Musicians → not Produce significant art
Same structure, so same flaw.

Key Takeaway:
In a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question, when there's a complex flaw related to conditionals and quantified statements, you don't need to precisely define the flaw. As long as you know that it's related to those statements, you can find an answer that diagrams out in the same manner and, thus, must have the same flaw.