PrepTest 110

Incorrect. First, the conclusion here is that certain groups "ought not" do something. That's not pointing out a contradiction—should/ought statements are a different type of logic (that will almost always match up in Parallel Reasoning questions). Second there's no contradiction here—while certain actions may make people ineffective at their jobs that's different from a contradiction.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Action justified → Person taking action is acting rationally
Conclusion — It makes no sense to say that you can justifiably act irrationally for a good goal

Answer Anticipation:
It's rare to see such a strongly abstract/philosophical argument so early in the section—these are usually difficult to parse and understand. When these show up, it's usually a good idea to start with the conclusion and work backwards.

Looking at the conclusion, there's a keyword there that we can focus on—"incoherent." In order for a statement/argument to be incoherent it isn't just unsupported—it actively doesn't make any sense. Why would something not make any sense? Because it contradicts itself.

Here the incoherent statement is that you can irrationally act while being justified. Why is that incoherent? Because according to the premise any justified action is rational. Thus to say a justified action is irrational is to contradict that rule.

Even if you don't follow that you could still get this question right! You should focus on the key ideas in the stimulus—and here that's the conclusion stating that a certain argument is "incoherent"/self—contradicting.

Answer Explanation:
This answer features a contradiction right off the bat—"intend[ing]" an "accident[]," matching up with the stimulus. It bases this off of a premise establishing that doing something intentionally and accidentally are mutually exclusive, much as the stimulus establishes that an action being justified and irrational are mutually exclusive. The logic in this argument matches up with the logic in the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
While these abstract, philosophical arguments can be hard to understand, focusing on structure and key terms can be very helpful in wrapping your head around them. Also, don't forget the question type you're in. Since this was a Parallel Reasoning question, we needed only to identify elements that would allow us to find an answer that matched the logic, not necessarily understand all of the logic. Seeing that the argument was about two things being mutually exclusive/incoherent was enough to get this question correct.

Incorrect. This argument brings in a viewpoint/perception in talking about what the neighbors see. There's no premise establishing that living the good life and being unhappy are mutually exclusive, just that the neighbors seeing someone being unhappy will also see them not living the good life.

Incorrect. There's no contradiction here, just a note that doctors will do a bad job of something because of a lack of objectivity.

Incorrect. This argument is about ethics, not mutually exclusive actions. One certainly can have both a cat and a goldfish (cartoon hijinks may ensue). The argument concludes, rather, that one "ought not to."