- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:48 pm
#23221
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning-SN. The correct answer choice is (A)
This Parallel question is a tricky conditional reasoning question. The stimulus give you a conditional reasoning statement as the second sentence (notice the "if") but then tells you that its subject does not fall under that reasoning, so it should not be applied. This abstraction can help you find the answer. The stimulus states that a business that is not profitable should be closed. We know from the first sentence that the county park system is not profitable, but then we find out it is not a business. You might diagram the second sentence as: if B (something is a business) and U (and it's unprofitable) then C (it should be closed): B and U → C. We then find out not B, so the conclusion is not that the county park system should not be closed. We cannot infer that except by Mistaken Negation. We can only infer that being unprofitable does not justify closing it.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, as it matches exactly the structure of the stimulus. If a show is in prime time and it fails to attract a large audience, it should be cancelled. However, the documentary does not air during prime time, so this reasoning does not justify (is not sufficient) to cancel it. Notice that the conclusions of the two arguments match exactly. One uses "does not justify" and the other uses "is not sufficient" and we know from Critical Reasoning questions that these two statements are exactly the same.
Answer choice (B): Notice that the conclusion does not match. Here the conclusion is a "should" not a "does not justify" like the stimulus. Also, neither one of the sufficient terms is negated like it is in the stimulus and answer choice A. According to the information we are given, OKESA appears to manufacture and market automobiles in the USA (it does not matter whether it also manufactures bicycles).
Answer choice (C): Again, this conclusion is a "should" not a "does not justify." The writers want you to think that the stimulus says the county parks "should" be closed, but the stimulus does not say that. It simply says that being unprofitable does not alone justify a closure.
Answer choice (D): The conclusion is once again a "should" and the reasoning is completely different. There is no conditional reasoning here; there are no sufficient or necessary clauses.
Answer choice (E): Although this answer choice does contain conditional reasoning (notice the "since" and the "should"), it is really only one premise and has not other information or principles to back it up and it also does not match the conclusion of the stimulus.
Parallel Reasoning-SN. The correct answer choice is (A)
This Parallel question is a tricky conditional reasoning question. The stimulus give you a conditional reasoning statement as the second sentence (notice the "if") but then tells you that its subject does not fall under that reasoning, so it should not be applied. This abstraction can help you find the answer. The stimulus states that a business that is not profitable should be closed. We know from the first sentence that the county park system is not profitable, but then we find out it is not a business. You might diagram the second sentence as: if B (something is a business) and U (and it's unprofitable) then C (it should be closed): B and U → C. We then find out not B, so the conclusion is not that the county park system should not be closed. We cannot infer that except by Mistaken Negation. We can only infer that being unprofitable does not justify closing it.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice, as it matches exactly the structure of the stimulus. If a show is in prime time and it fails to attract a large audience, it should be cancelled. However, the documentary does not air during prime time, so this reasoning does not justify (is not sufficient) to cancel it. Notice that the conclusions of the two arguments match exactly. One uses "does not justify" and the other uses "is not sufficient" and we know from Critical Reasoning questions that these two statements are exactly the same.
Answer choice (B): Notice that the conclusion does not match. Here the conclusion is a "should" not a "does not justify" like the stimulus. Also, neither one of the sufficient terms is negated like it is in the stimulus and answer choice A. According to the information we are given, OKESA appears to manufacture and market automobiles in the USA (it does not matter whether it also manufactures bicycles).
Answer choice (C): Again, this conclusion is a "should" not a "does not justify." The writers want you to think that the stimulus says the county parks "should" be closed, but the stimulus does not say that. It simply says that being unprofitable does not alone justify a closure.
Answer choice (D): The conclusion is once again a "should" and the reasoning is completely different. There is no conditional reasoning here; there are no sufficient or necessary clauses.
Answer choice (E): Although this answer choice does contain conditional reasoning (notice the "since" and the "should"), it is really only one premise and has not other information or principles to back it up and it also does not match the conclusion of the stimulus.
