#17 - If Suarez is not the most qualified of the candidates

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning—SN. The correct answer choice is (B)

This stimulus contains a conditional argument. The first conditional statement is a rule telling us that either Suarez or Anderson is the most qualified candidate:

• Sufficient Necessary
  
  Suarez Anderson

Next, we are given the situation in which the most qualified candidate is elected, narrowing the options to either Suarez or Anderson, yet Suarez is not elected. Applying the rule from the stimulus to this situation, the author correctly concludes that Anderson is elected, in accordance with the rule’s necessary condition.

The question stem identifies this as a Parallel Reasoning question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will have the same logical structure as the argument in the stimulus: a conditional rule giving two options, a factual situation in which one of the options does not occur, and a conclusion that the other option must occur.

Answer choice (A): In this argument, the conditional rule is that if the contract does not go to the lowest bidder (lowest), then it must go to Caldwell.

• Sufficient Necessary
  
  lowest Caldwell

Next, we are told that Qiu gets the contract. This is a new term that did not appear in the rule, which makes this answer choice unlike the stimulus, in which the factual situation did not introduce a new term. Here, the conclusion is an inference that Qiu is the lowest bidder, a type of inference that the argument in the stimulus did not contain.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice because its argument has a logical structure similar to that of the stimulus. We are given a rule that sets up an either/or situation. The lowest bidder is either Dillon or Ramsey. Then we are given the situation in which the lowest bidder gets the contract, but it is not Dillon. Since the lowest bidder had to be either Dillon or Ramsey, and it is not Dillon, then the lowest bidder must be Ramsey, which the conclusion properly infers.

Answer choice (C): Here, the answer choice is incorrect because it only introduces the concept of the lowest bidder in one of the premises, rather than introducing it in a rule and then invoking the rule with a conditional statement of fact, as occurred in both the stimulus (“most qualified” occurred in the rule and conditional statement of fact) and answer choice (B) (“lowest bidder” occurred in the rule and conditional statement of fact).

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect because its conclusion results from a Mistaken Reversal of the rule provided in the first sentence. That rule could be diagrammed as:

• Sufficient Necessary
  
  Holihanlowest bid Eastonlowest bid

The answer choice next raises the conditional statement assuming that Easton is not the lowest bidder (S]Easton[/S]lowest bid). This term was essentially the necessary condition of the rule provided, and to think that learning that the necessary condition has been satisfied tells us something about the sufficient condition is a Mistaken Reversal. So, this answer, reaching the conclusion by means of a Mistaken Reversal, is unlike the argument in the stimulus and is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): While the logical structure of the argument in this answer choice is very similar to that in the stimulus, it is incorrect because the conclusion infers that the lowest bidder, whoever that is, will not be awarded the contract, which is unlike the conclusion in the stimulus that one of the two named people will be selected.

[LawNat75]

hey there! thanks so much for all of your great answers. I am wondering if you could go into more depth as to why C is incorrect. You said that "the answer choice is incorrect because it only introduces the concept of the lowest bidder in one of the premises, rather than introducing it in a rule and then invoking the rule with a conditional statement of fact"

How is the first statement not a rule that is invoked with a conditional statement of fact, specifically in comparison to the one stated in the answer, b?

Thanks so much for your help.

[LawNat75]

in other words, can you not equate "the contract goes to" with "awarded the contract"

[Dana D]

Hey LawNat,

The stimulus reasoning gives us S A, or in other words, if Suarez is not the most qualified, then Anderson is. The conclusion says if the MQ candidate is elected and it's not Suarez, then Anderson is, Anderson is the MQ after Suarez.

Answer choice (C) doesn't match this exactly. It says if K Johnson. It does not mention how Kapshaw or Johnson will bid (which means it omits the comparison of 'most qualified' like the stimulus had) and then the biggest issue - the conclusion says if J K. Do you see how that conclusion is swapping K and J between the premise and conclusion? That does not match the stimulus, so (C) cannot be the right answer.

Hope that helps!