PrepTest 155

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Cooks use specific spices to achieve the heat level desired in traditionally spicy cuisines. But experienced cooks know that if the food is hot enough, you can't tell exactly which ingredient is causing your mouth to burn. So, none of the hot spices traditionally used is irreplaceable.

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 they're conditional or involve quantifiers). Alternatively, we can describe the argumentative strategy (if the premises and conclusion are not conditional and do not involve quantifiers).

On this question, you could use either approach. Every statement is conditional, so we could diagram this as:

1. Achieve Traditional Spiciness -> Use Specific Spices
2. Sufficiently Spiced -> Can't Tell Which Ingredient Causes Spiciness
   Conclusion: Traditional Spices -> NOT Irreplaceable

We could look for an answer choice that mirrors this structure. Two conditional premises, in which the sufficient conditions are roughly the same, and a conditional conclusion that asserts that the necessary condition of one of the premises is not truly necessary.

However, the above diagram does not utilize a transitive structure or include prominent features (like "ands," "ors," "most" statements, or "some" statements). So it will be rather challenging and time-consuming to diagram each answer choice until we find one that matches this structure.

Instead, we might be 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 out 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 productus).

So let's replace "achieving traditional hotness of spicy cuisines," with the generic "achieving a desired effect." Let's replace "some cooks use some specific kind of chili ..." with "some use specific things." Let's replace "impossible to distinguish which ingredient is causing the hot sensation" with "we can't say which specific thing is causing the desired effect." And let's replace "none of the hot spices traditionally used is irreplaceable" with "none of the specific things are necessary."

So the Kirkland version of this argument is, "To achieve a desired effect, some use specific things. But we can't say which specific thing is causing the desired effect. So none of the specific things are necessary." Now we'll see which answer choice matches this generic description of the argument.

Answer Choice Explanation:
This one matches the generic version of our argument! We have a "desired effect" (fish's ability to see underwater), being produced by "specific things" (specific light-sensitive pigments). But we can't say which specific thing produces the desired effect (because any one of the pigments makes underwater vision possible). In other words, just like any spice in sufficient quantity will make food as spicy as the cook desires, any light-sensitive pigment in a fish's eye will allow the fish to see. Therefore, (A) 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 one doesn't match the generic version of our argument. While the desired effect may be "an adequate defense," there are no "specific things" that are "not necessary" to achieve that effect. Moreover, there are lots of concepts here that don't exist in the stimulus — like, "overdone" and "more than half." So this is a bad match for the argumentative structure in the passage, and it is incorrect.

This one doesn't match the generic version of our argument. The desired effect may be "receiving a doctorate," and the "specific things" may be "complete the required number of classes and write a dissertation." However, there's no premise that states that "we can't say which specific thing is causing the desired effect" and the conclusion doesn't assert that none of the specific things are "necessary." So this is a bad match for the argumentative structure in the passage, and it is incorrect.

This one doesn't match the generic version of our argument. There are no "desired effects" or "specific things" to be found. In fact, this argument reads as the opposite of the passage. This is an argument about what is irreplaceable, while the passage argued that certain things are not irreplaceable.

This one doesn't match the generic version of our argument. The desired effect may be cooking a "delicious meal," and the "specific things" may be using "high-quality ingredients." However, there's no premise that states that "we can't say which specific thing is causing the desired effect" and the conclusion doesn't assert that none of the specific things are "necessary." In fact, this argument reads as the opposite of the passage. This is an argument about what is necessary, while the passage argued that certain things are not necessary.