#18 - If the recording now playing on the jazz program is

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Coleman!

Both the stimulus and answer choice (C) begin with a conditional statement that includes 2 sufficient conditions which lead to an impossible necessary condition:

Stimulus: If this is Louis Armstrong AND a concert in 1989, then he was playing after his death.
Answer choice (C): If this is a 17th century Japanese landscape AND by Frida Kahlo, then a 20th century Mexican artist was painting in Japan in the 17th century. (Note: "Only if" is a necessary condition indicator, so in this sentence the impossible necessary condition comes before the sufficient condition. The structure of the statements are the same, however, even though the order of presentation is different.)

Since the necessary conditions in both of these statements are impossible, the authors state that since one of the sufficient conditions must be true, the other one cannot be. In other words, if both things cannot be true at the same time and thing 1 is true, then thing 2 must not be true.

Stimulus: This is Louis Armstrong, so it cannot be in 1989.
Answer choice (C): This is a 17th century Japanese landscape ("the 17th century Japanese landscape it appears to be" = "what it appears to be"), so it is not by Frida Kahlo ("'by Frida Kahlo' as labeled"; "the label is wrong").

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[ericj_williams]

I liked B because it seemed to similar to the stimulus.

Louis Armstrong can't be two places at once, playing in 89 and be in the grave at the same time. Thus, it's wrong.

C is practically the same, this can't be in two places at once, thus wrong.

[ericj_williams]

I liked B because it seemed to similar to the stimulus.

Louis Armstrong can't be two places at once, playing in 89 and be in the grave at the same time. Thus, it's wrong.

C is practically the same, this can't be in two places at once, thus wrong.

Sorry I meant to say B, it sounds like the painting can't be in two places, thus wrong.

[ericj_williams]

Hi Coleman!

Both the stimulus and answer choice (C) begin with a conditional statement that includes 2 sufficient conditions which lead to an impossible necessary condition:

Stimulus: If this is Louis Armstrong AND a concert in 1989, then he was playing after his death.
Answer choice (C): If this is a 17th century Japanese landscape AND by Frida Kahlo, then a 20th century Mexican artist was painting in Japan in the 17th century. (Note: "Only if" is a necessary condition indicator, so in this sentence the impossible necessary condition comes before the sufficient condition. The structure of the statements are the same, however, even though the order of presentation is different.)

Since the necessary conditions in both of these statements are impossible, the authors state that since one of the sufficient conditions must be true, the other one cannot be. In other words, if both things cannot be true at the same time and thing 1 is true, then thing 2 must not be true.

Stimulus: This is Louis Armstrong, so it cannot be in 1989.
Answer choice (C): This is a 17th century Japanese landscape ("the 17th century Japanese landscape it appears to be" = "what it appears to be"), so it is not by Frida Kahlo ("'by Frida Kahlo' as labeled"; "the label is wrong").

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

How often are we likely to see an implied and?

The stimulus does not say and, but the correct answer choice does.

"Louis Armstrong recorded in concert in 1989" There is no AND there. But the correct answer choice explicitly says AND "as labeled AND the seventeenth".

[Jeremy Press]

I liked B because it seemed to similar to the stimulus.

Louis Armstrong can't be two places at once, playing in 89 and be in the grave at the same time. Thus, it's wrong.

C is practically the same, this can't be in two places at once, thus wrong.

Sorry I meant to say B, it sounds like the painting can't be in two places, thus wrong.

Hi Eric,

The slight difference in answer choice B is that the reasoning in B is flawed, because we don't know for sure whether the painting titled La Toilette actually is Berthe Morisot's La Toilette. Maybe it's another painting by another artist, with the same "La Toilette" title. If that were true, the conclusion that the painting is "mistitled" would definitely be invalid.

In the stimulus, we're told (as a separate premise) that the trumpeter on the recording definitely was Louis Armstrong. This validates the conclusion that the date of the recording couldn't have been 1989. Without that same kind of separate premise in answer choice B (that this "La Toilette" painting is actually Berthe Morisot's La Toilette), the reasoning does not mirror the stimulus.

Regarding your question about the implied "and" in the stimulus, it's not uncommon but I wouldn't say it's something that shows up on every test. It shows up enough that you should be sensitive to the possibility. It often occurs when a sufficient condition ascribes multiple characteristics to the same thing. For example, the stimulus ascribes to the recording the characteristics that it took place in 1989 and featured Louis Armstrong. Both of those characteristics are relevant to the conditional relationship and can be tracked in a diagram of the reasoning.

I hope this helps!

[conorrjohnston]

Hi Experts!!

I'm really struggling with parallel reasoning. It is often the only question style I get wrong. Any tips!?!?!

I think the reason I immediately eliminate C was because the conditionals in the stimulus offered an "if..then" *classic* ; whereas answer (C) gave an "only if" -- a completely different arrow!! I didn't even read the answer choice for that reason. Obviously, this is a wrong approach, but I was wondering why it can change the conditional typing and still be right.

I mapped the answer choice and it is identical to the stim besides the "only if".. still stuck on this. I probably shouldn't be, but it keeps happening :/. Any tips would REALLY help. Thank you so much!!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi conorrjohnston!

With respect to tips for parallel the reasoning questions in general, I'd encourage you to remember the Double the Conclusion strategy. That involves matching the language in the conclusion (e.g., most, some, should, must) with the language of the conclusions in the answer choices. This can often lead to eliminating two or three answer choices off the bat, without having to examine them closely. After applying that strategy, you can also Double the Premises, making sure that they match between the stimulus and the answer choices. Applying those two strategies doesn't always winnow it down to a single answer choice, but it is surprising how often they work in helping to get these questions right and doing so in less time.

In addition, it's good that you've noticed the issue of an if-then statement being phrased as an only-if statement in one of the answer choices. You should certainly be on guard for this, especially when there is clear conditional reasoning in the stimulus. Beyond phrasing an if-then statement in only-if form, you might also find that an answer choice uses the contrapositive, which is saying the same thing. For similar reasons, be on guard for premises and conclusions appearing in a different order in the answer choices. The conclusion might be at the end of the stimulus, but that doesn't mean that it also must be so in the correct answer choice--the order might be different while saying the same thing.

[sureniti2024]

The two ACs I had difficulty eliminating were B and E. The stimulus is also quite hard to break down but this is how I did it:

The conclusion, "the announcer must have gotten the DATE wrong" points us back to the first sentence where the author is implying a dichotomy between the DATE and who the recording was of ARMSTRONG. This intuition gives us how the author is trying to set up the argument. Either the DATE or ARMSTRONG is wrong - which, with enough experience, allows us to infer the type of argument i.e., the contrapositive of A and B -> C. So we get:

DATE and ARMSTRONG -> "playing music after death"

The necessary condition here is impossible, so it's implicitly negated thus giving us the not-DATE or not-ARMSTRONG dichotomy.

Then, there is another step. Our B variable or ARMSTRONG is affirmed, which allows us to conclude not-A or not-DATE. This second step is important in eliminating answer choice B because this affirming of one variable in our not-A or not-B dichotomy is absent in answer choice B.

To break down answer choice B: if titled La Toilette and is by Berthe -> then something impossible (being in two museums at the same time). Then we need to affirm either that it was titled La Toilette or that is was by Berthe, which we don't get. This absence is what makes B incorrect.

And for answer choice E: if portrait and acrylic -> then something impossible. But here, we don't even get the impossibility element. The portrait might not have been by Elisabeth and the conditional could still hold. Therefore, we can't force out an "or" dichotomy from this answer choice.

Finally for C: if labelled as Frida and is the Japanese landscape -> then something impossible (an artist from both the seventeenth-century and the twentieth-century). We affirm that it is the Japanese landscape and thus conclude that it is not-labelled correctly.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi sureniti,

Great job!

If you check out Robert's explanation earlier in this forum thread, you'll see that it closely matches your reasoning.