Parallel reasoning question

@carysdavies, Great question. In mapping the stimulus, we have tarantula - -some - -good pet - ->/poison fangs The stimulus then concludes that not all tarantula species have poison fangs tarantula - -some - -/poison fangs in translating the conclusion, make sure you negate the conditional statement properly. The conclusion reads not (tarantula - ->poison fangs) This is a negation of this conditional statement, which means there is at least one tarantula that doesn't have poison fangs tarantula and /poison fangs This means the same thing as tarantula - -some - -/poison fangs The basic structure of the stimulus is A some B, B - ->C, therefore A some C This is a valid argument form. Answer choice A states that none of the poetry written by Strawn has a regular meter. poetry Strawn - ->/regular meter It also states that some of the poems in this collection have a regular meter poems in this collection - -some - -regular meter In order to link the two premises together, we need to take the contrapositive of the first premise regular meter - ->/poetry Strawn We can now link this up with the second premise, so we have poems in this collection - -some - -regular meter - ->/poetry Strawn So far, we have A some B, B - ->C. What do we need for it to match the stimulus? We need A some C So, if it says poems in this collection - -some - -/poetry Strawn, then we have our answer The conclusion of A says at least some poems in this collection were not written by Strawn. A - -some - -/poetry Strawn This is exactly what we needed (we needed A some C), so this is our answer. The key for this problem is to take the contrapositive of the first premise in answer A so that you can clearly see the link that the two premises make between A (poems in this collection) and C (poetry not written by Strawn) Does this help? Let us know if you have more questions!