PrepTest 156

This answer choice's conclusion resembles the passage's conclusion, which is also an "if-then" claim with an "and" on the "if" side. So, we can diagram these premises to see if the rest of the argument lines up with the passage's:

P1: Accepted → Postmarked by deadline and entry form

P2: Deadline: March 21

Conclusion: Entry form and NOT postmarked by deadline → NOT accepted

Upon diagramming the first premise, we can eliminate this answer choice. Unlike either of the premises in the passage, this answer choice's first premise features an "and" on the "then" side. That means this argument will be structurally dissimilar to the passage, which guarantees that it won't commit the same flaw as the passage. Moreover, this answer choice's second premise is not an "if-then" statement. Finally, this argument's conclusion is valid, as it's an acceptable restatement of the flipside of P1 ("NOT postmarked by deadline or NOT entry form → NOT accepted").

This answer choice's conclusion doesn't resemble the passage's conclusion, which is an "if-then" claim with an "and" on the "if" side. This answer choice's conclusion isn't an "if-then" statement and doesn't feature an "and." That means this argument is structurally dissimilar to the passage, ensuring that it doesn't commit the same flaw as the passage. We can eliminate this answer choice without diagramming.

If we did diagram this answer choice's argument, here's what we'd get:

P1: Kitchen organized and good cook → Delicious meal

P2: NOT delicious meal

Conclusion: NOT kitchen organized

Upon diagramming the first premise, we can eliminate this answer choice. Unlike either of the premises in the passage, this answer choice's first premise features an "and" on the "if" side. That means this argument will be structurally dissimilar to the passage. Further, this answer doesn't commit an inverse flaw/illegal negation/denied-but-didn't-flip flaw. Instead, this answer choice misapplies P1's flipside ("NOT delicious meal → NOT kitchen organized or NOT good cook"). Jon's kitchen isn't necessarily not well-organized — he could be a bad cook!

This answer choice's conclusion resembles the passage's conclusion, which is also an "if-then" claim with an "and" on the "if" side. So, we can diagram these premises to see if the rest of the argument lines up with the passage's:

P1: Exercise daily → Improve fitness

P2: Quit smoking → Improve fitness

Conclusion: NOT exercise daily and NOT quit smoking → NOT improve fitness

This matches the flaw in the passage's argument. Like the passage, this conclusion negates two "if" conditions — it changes "exercise daily" and "quit smoking" to "NOT exercise daily" and "NOT quit smoking." The conclusion also negates a "then" condition — it changes "improve fitness" to "NOT improve fitness." So, like the passage, this is an example of the inverse flaw/illegal negation/denied-but-didn't-flip flaw.

Because this answer choice commits the same flaw as the passage, we can select it and advance straight to the following question.

This answer choice's conclusion doesn't resemble the passage's conclusion, which is an "if-then" claim with an "and" on the "if" side. This answer choice's conclusion isn't an "if-then" statement (it's just a factual claim that "the police are going to ticket Ruta's car") and doesn't feature an "and." So, this argument is structurally dissimilar to the passage and thus cannot commit the same flaw as the passage. We can eliminate this answer choice without diagramming.

If we did diagram this answer choice's argument, here's what we'd get:

P1: Parked car and NOT parking permit → Police ticket

P2: Parked car and parking permit expired → Police ticket

P3: Ruta: Parking permit expired

Conclusion: Police ticket

Upon diagramming the first premise, we can eliminate this answer choice. Unlike either of the premises in the passage, this answer choice's first premise features an "and" on the "if" side. That means this argument will be structurally dissimilar to the passage. Further, this answer choice doesn't commit an inverse flaw/illegal negation/denied-but-didn't-flip flaw. The argument just applies a factual premise to P2. If the argument is flawed, it's only because the premise doesn't establish that Ruta's car is parked.

This answer choice's conclusion resembles the passage's conclusion, which is also an "if-then" claim with an "and" on the "if" side. So, we can diagram these premises to see if the rest of the argument lines up with the passage's:

P1: Obedience class –most→ Respond to commands

P2: Obedience class <-some→ Advanced tricks

Conclusion: Obedience class and advanced tricks → Respond to commands

Upon diagramming the first premise, we can eliminate this answer choice. Unlike either of the premises in the passage, this answer choice's first premise is a "most" statement. Plus, the answer choice's second premise is a "some" statement. Finally, this conclusion is flawed for many reasons, but it doesn't commit an inverse flaw/illegal negation/denied-but-didn't-flip flaw.