- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Dec 12, 2016 6:12 pm
#31386
Complete Question Explanation
This is a Parallel-Principle question, asking us to pick the answer that lays out a rule or guideline that most closely matches what happened in the stimulus. While there are many things to look for in any standard Parallel Reasoning question (the same strength and type of conclusion, the same number and type of premises, the same validity, and the same type of reasoning), the introduction of a Principle to the mix typically suggests that the best approach will be the Test of AbstractionTM. This is done by stripping the stimulus clean of any details and distilling it down to its essential elements.
Here, that abstraction should be something like "two parties behave identically but only one is directly responsible for causing a harm to a third party, so only that one party should be held responsible." We need an answer that applies that abstraction as a rule. We need two parties doing the same thing, one of them directly causing a harm that the other does not directly cause, and that one party being the only one who should be held accountable.
Answer A: This one involves only one party and no harm done, so this is no match and we can quickly call it a loser.
Answer B: There are two parties doing identical work here (Linda and Seung), but they caused no harm and neither was singled out for responsibility. Another loser.
Answer C: This is the correct answer. Two parties (terry and Chris) are behaving identically; one causes a direct harm to another (Chris crashes into a parked car); that one is the only one held responsible. A perfect match for our abstraction.
Answer D: Two parties behave identically, but no harm results from their actions but instead from the actions of some unidentified third party, and neither of our two are held responsible. No match on several levels, and thus a loser.
Answer E: Two parties behave the same, but there's nothing clear about who caused the harm, and in any case the harm is done to one of them and not to a third party, and the conclusion is about them holding someone else responsible. Not a match and another loser.
This is a Parallel-Principle question, asking us to pick the answer that lays out a rule or guideline that most closely matches what happened in the stimulus. While there are many things to look for in any standard Parallel Reasoning question (the same strength and type of conclusion, the same number and type of premises, the same validity, and the same type of reasoning), the introduction of a Principle to the mix typically suggests that the best approach will be the Test of AbstractionTM. This is done by stripping the stimulus clean of any details and distilling it down to its essential elements.
Here, that abstraction should be something like "two parties behave identically but only one is directly responsible for causing a harm to a third party, so only that one party should be held responsible." We need an answer that applies that abstraction as a rule. We need two parties doing the same thing, one of them directly causing a harm that the other does not directly cause, and that one party being the only one who should be held accountable.
Answer A: This one involves only one party and no harm done, so this is no match and we can quickly call it a loser.
Answer B: There are two parties doing identical work here (Linda and Seung), but they caused no harm and neither was singled out for responsibility. Another loser.
Answer C: This is the correct answer. Two parties (terry and Chris) are behaving identically; one causes a direct harm to another (Chris crashes into a parked car); that one is the only one held responsible. A perfect match for our abstraction.
Answer D: Two parties behave identically, but no harm results from their actions but instead from the actions of some unidentified third party, and neither of our two are held responsible. No match on several levels, and thus a loser.
Answer E: Two parties behave the same, but there's nothing clear about who caused the harm, and in any case the harm is done to one of them and not to a third party, and the conclusion is about them holding someone else responsible. Not a match and another loser.