#19 - The Volunteers for Literacy Program would benefit if

[gmosquera42]

Could you please provide an answer as to why A is correct?

I correctly answered the question but used some questionable methods. I looked at the reasons why Delores is a better match for the position (looking at positives and negatives for Victor) as I did why DOminique should take the bus to school vs the subway (again looking at positives and the negatives presented).

Positives of Dolores:More skillful at getting funding

Negatives of Victor:Alienating the programs most dedicated volunteers



Answer A Positives of riding the bus:Bus stop is closer

Answer A negatives of riding the subway:

[James Finch]

Hi G Mosquera,

Your process isn't questionable at all, in fact it sounds like you did exactly what you need to do to correctly answer a parallel reasoning question! With this question type, the reasoning in the answer choice should be an exact match with the reasoning in the stimulus. In this case, we have a conclusion that is followed by two supporting premises, as you noted:

Conclusion: Dolores should replace Victor as Director

Premise #1: Dolores is better at garnering financial support than Victor (a positive piece of evidence for Dolores)

Premise #2: Dolores doesn't alienate the volunteers like Victor does (negative evidence about Victor)

Then you noted that this is exactly what answer choice (A) does:

Conclusion: Dominique should take a bus to school rather than the subway

Premise #1: Bus stops closer to Dominique's house (positive for bus)

Premise #2: Subway doesn't go directly to the school, like the bus (negative for the subway)

Well done!

[saygracealways]

Hi Powerscore,

Upon reading the explanation above, I understand why (A) is correct, and why the other answer choices are incorrect, but while I was solving this question initially, I had eliminated (A) (B) and (C) because the conclusions say "more convenient", "would be better served" and "get to the concert more quickly", respectively, whereas the conclusion in the stimulus says "would benefit". Hence I thought the conclusions didn't match because the stimulus conclusion doesn't include a modifier like "more or better". Could you please elaborate on why my reasoning is wrong here, and if I'm using the "match the conclusion" technique correctly?

Thank you.

[Christen Hammock]

Hi SayGraceAlways!

Great job on precise reading—that's exactly what you should do when you're attempting to match a conclusion in Parallel Reasoning questions. Here, though, the word "benefit" is functionally equivalent to getting somewhere more quickly or more conveniently (that's a time benefit!) or being better served. You're right that using a qualifier like "more" or "better" can often distinguish answer choices, but here, the word "benefit" already has that kind of qualified language built in.

[spinnerv]

I understand the reasoning for A being correct, but I had trouble ruling out D. Could you explain why D is incorrect?

[Robert Carroll]

spinnerv,

Answer choice (D) is incorrect because it really only gives one reason why taking the train is better. Taking the car involves parking fees, which are more expensive than a train ticket. So the single reason the train is better is because of the fees.

I think answer choice (D) misleads one into thinking there are two factors: having to pay parking fees, and the parking fees being higher. But "having to pay parking fees" isn't a separate factor from the amount of the fee. So there's only one factor discussed, unlike the stimulus, which discusses two factors why one course of action is better than another.

Robert Carroll

[ashpine17]

Why is parking and the parking being higher one reason instead of two? Isn’t parking fees alone already one con?

[Adam Tyson]

It's still just one reason, ashpine, because the only reason higher parking rates matter is because she has to pay for parking. If the only issue was that she had to pay for parking, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing since otherwise she had to pay for a train ticket, and parking might cost less.