#19 - No one in the French department to which Professor

[Dave Killoran]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (D).

The structure of the stimulus is as follows:

• Premise: No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs is allowed to teach more than one introductory level class in any one term.
  
  Premise: Moreover, the only language classes being taught next term are advanced ones.
  
  Conclusion: So it is untrue that both of the French classes Professor Alban will be teaching next term will be introductory level classes.

First, note that an analysis of the argument above shows that the reasoning is valid (the lack of a reference to flawed reasoning in the question stem doesn’t prove that the reasoning is valid, but it allows for the possibility).

Second, most people find that there is no clearly identifiable (or easily described) form of reasoning used to draw the conclusion, and each of the answer choices except (B) contains a conclusion with similar language to the conclusion in the stimulus. Thus, you must look elsewhere for the factor that separates the answer choices. Take a moment to consider each premise and how it relates to the conclusion; the argument is unusual in that both premises independently prove the conclusion, and this structure must be paralleled in the correct answer.

Now examine each premise:

• Premise: No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs is allowed to teach more than one introductory level class in any one term.

The premise contains two pieces of information: no one in the French department is allowed to teach more than one introductory level class and Professor Alban belongs to the French department. Combining those two pieces yields the conclusion that Professor Alban can teach at most one introductory level class in a term. This fact is reflected in the language of the conclusion.

• Premise: Moreover, the only language classes being taught next term are advanced ones.

If only advanced language classes are being taught next term, then no person could teach an introductory level French class next term. That truth is encompassed in the conclusion when the author states that “it is untrue that both of the French classes Professor Alban will be teaching next term will be introductory level classes.”

Turning to the answers, you should look for the answer that has two independent premises that both prove the conclusion. Because there are two premises, this “premise test” will take longer to apply and this is one reason we typically look at the conclusion in a Parallel Reasoning question before examining the premises.

Answer choice (A): This answer contains a conditional Repeat form, and as such, the two premises work together. Since the structure of the answer is different from that of the stimulus, the answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): Only the first premise in this answer choice proves the conclusion; the second premise is irrelevant to the conclusion. Therefore, this answer is incorrect.

As mentioned before, this answer choice is also suspect because the conclusion is different from that in the stimulus.

Answer choice (C): There are two excellent reasons to eliminate this answer choice:

• 1. The answer choice contains invalid reasoning.
  
  2. The two premises work together and are not independent as in the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer. As with the argument in the stimulus, each premise in this answer choice separately supports the conclusion.

Note that as mentioned previously, the negative term in the conclusion of the answer choice is not a factor that should be considered. For the purposes of matching the conclusion, “will be” and “will not be” are identical.

Answer choice (E): This answer is very similar to answer choice (A), and contains a valid form of reasoning based on the Repeat form. Since the two premises work together and neither proves the conclusion alone, this answer choice is incorrect.

[reop6780]

Pg 282

I excluded answer A, C, and E but could not tell the difference between answer B and D.

I got this wrong by choosing answer B and the correct answer is D.

The reasoning in the stimuli was providing two reasons to support the conclusion that Alban does not teach both of the French classes.

Both B and D are doing similar jobs. I was a bit hesitant with the word, "recently" in the answer D since i do not know a building built in 3 years is still a recent vuilding.

Away from that, is the answer D correct because the conclusion includes concepts mentioned in the premises such as public space and Alton?
- While answer B does not have the overlapping concepts between premises and the conclusion.

[Steve Stein]

Hi,

That's a good question. In the stimulus, the author draws a conclusion based on two premises, each of which provides sufficient support individually to prove the conclusion:

No one in that department can teach more than one intro class in any one term.
Therefore, it is untrue that Professor A will be teaching two French intro classes next term.

The only language classes being taught next term are advanced.
Therefore, it is untrue that Professor A will be teaching two French intro classes next term.

Similarly, correct answer choice (D) provides two premises, each of which independently proves the conclusion that the building will not be subject to city taxes next year.

Answer choice (B) does provide two premises, but one of them doesn't really support the conclusion:

The first section of the revised code only applies to buildings built between 1900 and 1920.
Therefore the entire revised code doesn't apply to this old building(?)

Since one of the premises doesn't independently prove the conclusion, this one doesn't quite parallel the reasoning from the stimulus.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[reop6780]

Hi, Steve!

The explanation was very clear for me. Thank you !

[reop6780]

This is parallel question, and I could not tell the difference between answer B and D.
(The correct answer is D)

The stimuli provides two different premises that support the conclusion, and each of the premises is enough to support the conclusion by itself.

Perhaps, the second premise of answer B, "only the first section of the revised code applies to buildings built between 1900 and 1920" is not strong enough to support the conclusion individually?

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, reop,

You are correct about the second half of answer choice B! The second premise doesn't pertain at all to the conclusion, since it only talks about buildings built from 1900-1920 and the building in question was built in 1873.

Answer choice D, as you say, has both premises strong enough to support the conclusion by itself - even if new buildings weren't exempt from city taxes for two years, or if all new buildings in the Alton district weren't exempt for five years, the conclusion would still be true. So you got it right! Good job.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[reop6780]

yay

[cacurtis1]

The stimulus starts with "No one in the French department to which Professor Alban belongs...". In Powerscores explanation they state the answer B ("The revised tax codes..."), is incorrect cause it does not contain similar language in its conclusion. Can someone explain the similar language difference in answer B than the stimulus? Thanks.

[Stephanie Oswalt]

Hi cacurtis1!

I have moved your question to the thread discussing this topic. Please review the above discussion, and let us know if that helps, or if you still have further questions.

Thanks!

[gwlsathelp]

Hi, I would like to know what the two independent premises are in answer D. I identified the independent premises clearly in the stimulus, but answer D does not. How would you approach understanding this?