PrepTest 158

This conclusion doesn't resemble the claim that "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." This conclusion makes a prediction. It doesn't assert that we should be suspicious of a claim. Moreover, there's no "person B" in this argument. We can eliminate (A) without even evaluating the premises. (If we did evaluate this answer choice's premises, we'd also note that nothing parallels the passage's claims about a "thorough review" or person A's lack of bias.)

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Passage Summary:
An inspector thoroughly checked the railroad tracks and said they were in good condition. The inspector has no bias. So, we should be suspicious of the reporter who claimed the tracks were in bad condition.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Diagrammable?
1. If yes, diagram out premises and conclusion.
2. Note key identifiable characteristics of argument (How many premises? Quantifiers? Ands/ors? Contrapositives? Transitives?) Can also convert specific terms in diagram to As, Bs, Cs, Ds, etc.
1. Eliminate an answer choice as soon as you notice it doesn't possess a key identifiable characteristic the passage possesses
2. Diagram remaining until you find a matching diagram
3. If not, paraphrase the method of reasoning
1. Keep in mind common methods of reasoning, like argument by analogy
2. Select answer choice that uses the same method of reasoning

Answer Anticipation:
Parallel Reasoning questions task us with finding the answer choice with the same argumentative structure as the argument in the passage. There are two ways we can look beyond the subject matter of the passage to uncover its underlying structure. One route is to diagram the premises and conclusions (if at least some of them are "if-then," "most," or "some" statements quantifiers). Alternatively, we can describe the argumentative strategy (if the premises and conclusion are not conditional and do not involve quantifiers).

None of the statements in this argument is an "if-then," "most," or "some" statement, so we are better off attempting to describe the argumentative structure. Some test-takers like to use the "Kirkland" strategy to describe an argument's structure rather than its content. To use the "Kirkland" strategy, we'll simply remove any reference to the subject matter and replace it with a generic descriptor (much like Costco replaces brand-named items with generic "Kirkland" versions of those products).

So, let's replace "railway authority inspector who recently thoroughly checked the tracks" with the generic "person A." Let's replace "testified that they were in good condition" with "said X after a thorough review." The phrases "has no bias in the matter" and "we should be suspicious of" are generic already, so we can leave them in. But let's replace "the newspaper reporter's claim that the tracks are in poor condition" with "person B's claim that X is not true."

The Kirkland version of this argument is, "Person A said X after a thorough review. Thus, since person A has no bias in the matter, we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." Now, let's see which answer choice matches this generic description of the argument.

We can also expedite our review of the answer choices if we take a conclusion-out approach. We should compare each conclusion to the Kirkland version of our conclusion — that "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." If an answer choice's conclusion doesn't resemble that, we can eliminate it without bothering with the answer choice's premises.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This one matches the generic version of our argument! We have a premise that parallels the claim that "Person A said X after a thorough review." In this answer choice, that's the claim that "Gardner, a noted paleontologist ... assures us that the alleged dinosaur bones are not old enough to be from dinosaurs." The argument also adds that "Gardner inspected the bones carefully" to parallel the "thorough review" part. We can also find a premise that parallels the claim that "person A has no bias in the matter" — the assertion that Gardner "has no vested interest in this case." Finally, the conclusion parallels "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." This conclusion asserts that "we should be skeptical of Penwick's claim to have found dinosaur bones." This directly contradicts Gardner's claim, so it parallels the idea that "X is not true." Therefore, (B) is correct.

Key Takeaway:
When faced with a Parallel Reasoning passage that isn't a diagramming exercise, paraphrase the argument's reasoning without using specific nouns from the passage. Replace those specific knowns with generic descriptors, and you'll have a helpful, Kirkland-brand version of the argument to compare to the answer choices.

This conclusion doesn't resemble the claim that "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." This conclusion asserts that a bridge is definitely safe. That's akin to saying "X is true," which is slightly stronger than "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." That's enough reason to eliminate (C).

But if you weren't convinced, you could analyze the premises. The premises don't have anything similar to the claim that "person A has no bias in the matter." In fact, if the engineer was hired by the company that maintains the bridge, the engineer might have a bias! Moreover, there's no "person B" in this argument.

This conclusion doesn't resemble the claim that "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." This conclusion asserts that the prime minister is in poor health. That's akin to saying "X is true," which is slightly stronger than "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." That's enough reason to eliminate (D).

But if you need more reason to cross off (D), you could examine the premises. The premises don't have anything similar to the claim that "person A has no bias in the matter." In fact, it says that the newspaper reporter might be biased (since they work for a paper with "opposition leanings") but that their bias won't affect their claim about the prime minister's health. Finally, there's no "person B" in this argument.

This conclusion doesn't resemble the claim that "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." This conclusion asserts that we can "discount" the claim that there will be above-average snowfall this year. That's akin to saying "X is not true," which is nearly the opposite of saying, "we should be suspicious of person B's claim that X is not true." That's enough reason to eliminate (D).

If we also evaluated the premises, we'd see that no premise matches the claim that "person A has no bias in the matter." In fact, the argument asserts that the salesperson is biased. Also, there's no "person B" in this argument.