PrepTest 152

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Valid

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Tarantula-some-Good pets
Good pet → not Poison fangs
Therefore: Tarantula-some-not Poison fangs

Answer Anticipation:
This argument validly combines a conditional with a some quantified statement to form a some quantified conclusion. Let's rule out answers that don't follow that pattern and diagram out the remaining ones.

Answer Explanation:
Regular meter → not Strawn
In collection-some-Regular meter
Therefore: In collection-some-not Strawn
This answer follows the same pattern as the stimulus and is equally valid, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
This is an example of a late/difficult Parallel Reasoning question that, with your knowledge of the test, you should be able to get through accurately and much faster than average. Look for those quantifiers and conditionals, rule out the (3 here) answers that don't match up with the stimulus, and diagram out what's left. You'll only have to diagram out 2 answers instead of 4-5, which is a substantial time savings!

Incorrect. This answer has two some premises, so it doesn't match the stimulus with its conditional premise.

Incorrect. Strawn-some-Regular meter
Strawn → not In collection
Therefore: In collection-some-not Regular meter
The conclusion here is an illegal negation of the valid some statement that could be inferred. Even without recognizing that, still seeing that the terms are negated in the conclusion should have been enough for you to eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. This answer has a conditional conclusion, so it doesn't match with the some quantifier in the conclusion of the stimulus.

Incorrect. This answer has two conditional premises, so it doesn't match with the some premise of the stimulus.