#25 - Large inequalities in wealth always threaten the

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

The key to answering this parallel reasoning question is to find the conclusion. As the word "since" modifies everything following the first statement, it is clear that the first sentence is the conclusion. Once you have isolated this conclusion, you will notice that it focuses on inequalities in wealth threatening the viability of democracy. Using the Double the Conclusion technique, we must therefore find the answer choice in which the existence of one thing or concept threatens something else. Answers with conclusions that do not fit within this general framework cannot be the correct choice and should be quickly dismissed.

Answer Choice (A): In this answer choice, the conclusion focuses upon two things being dangerous in combination with each other, which is different than one thing threatening another, therefore is a completely different type of conclusion.

Answer Choice (B): An argument could be made for this being a similar conclusion, since Sara going to the bookstore every time her pocket was full would threaten her ability to cover her living expenses. However, a closer look reveals differences. Here, instead of her ability to cover living expenses being threatened, the stimulus tells us that if she went to the bookstore every time her pocket was full, she would never have enough money to cover her living expenses. Also, in the stimulus, conditional reasoning is used within the premises, while there is no conditional reasoning in this answer choice.

Answer Choice (C): In this answer choice, the conclusion merely tells us about a thing that is generally difficult to do. There is no information to match with the stimulus conclusion about the existence of one thing threatening another.

Answer Choice (D): Here, we are just told that something is important, but can lead to negative consequences, so therefore it is hard to predict the result of that things occurrence.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The conclusion tells us that repeated encroachments on one's leisure time, interfere (or threaten) the requirements of good health. Further, conditional reasoning similar to that in the conclusion is used to get to the ultimate conclusion.

[Jleon25]

Hello,

I am really confused on this parallel reasoning question regarding "large inequalities of wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy". I narrowed it down to C and E, but chose C for no good reason, honestly. This is my question.

After reading the stimulus, what should I have in my mind that I am looking for before going to the answer choices? Overall, I do not understand the pattern of reasoning in the stimulus. Is it categorical or non-categorical?

I thought I saw some conditional logic, but I was not sure. Also, could you please explain why C is incorrect and E is correct?

Thanks for your time!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi Jleon25,

Thanks for your question, and apologies for the belated response.

The argument in the stimulus is indeed conditional. Let's start with the last premise, as it is the simplest one to diagram:

Premise: True democracy Equal power distribution

Immediately before that, the author observes that "wealth is the basis of political power," i.e. a necessary condition for it:

Premise: Power Wealth

On the basis of these two statements, the author concludes that inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy. The modifier "always" suggests this is a conditional statement, which takes the form of a contrapositive chain:

Conclusion: NOT Equal wealth distribution NO Equal power distribution NO True democracy

When examining the answer choices, we are looking to match the following elements, using the Parallel Reasoning Elemental Attack:

1. Conditional Reasoning
2. Match the premises:

Premise: A B
Premise: B C

3. Match the conclusion:

Conclusion: NO C NO A

Answer choices (A) and (D) can be immediately eliminated because they don't contain conditional reasoning. Both contain causation and use softer language ("sometimes").

Answer choices (B) and (C) can also be eliminated because their premises are markedly different from those in the stimulus, and neither allows us to form a conditional chain. Answer choice (C) is somewhat attractive, because it does have a conditional premise (Historical Fiction Historical Accuracy). However, the other premise is essentially a counter-premise that negates the conditional relationship between "Science Fiction" and "Historical Accuracy," which has no match in the original argument.

This leaves us with answer choice (E). When simplified and reworded, this answer choice would look like this:

Premise: Good health Exercise
Premise: Exercise Leisure time
Conclusion: NO Leisure Time NO Good Health

As you can see, the reasoning in answer choice (E) takes the exact same form as the reasoning contained in the stimulus. It is absolutely critical to know what you're looking for when attacking Parallel Reasoning questions. I tend to invest a lot of time understanding the structure of the stimulus, which allows me to quickly, and ruthlessly, eliminate answer choices that do not conform to it.

Hope this helps. Let me know!

Thanks!

[Jleon25]

Thank you very much for the extremely thorough explanation;you broke the question down really well!

[Blueballoon5%]

The argument in the stimulus is indeed conditional. Let's start with the last premise, as it is the simplest one to diagram:

Premise: True democracy Equal power distribution

Immediately before that, the author observes that "wealth is the basis of political power," i.e. a necessary condition for it:

Premise: Power Wealth

On the basis of these two statements, the author concludes that inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy. The modifier "always" suggests this is a conditional statement, which takes the form of a contrapositive chain:

Conclusion: NOT Equal wealth distribution NO Equal power distribution NO True democracy

Hi Nikki! Could you help me understand how you came up with the conclusion conditional statement. I don't see "NO Equal power distribution" in the conclusion. I only see political power referenced in premise 1 and premise 2.

Here was my diagram (just to demonstrate my line of thinking):
Conclusion: "Large inequalities in wealth always threaten the viability of true democracy..."
Translated to the following conditional statement: "NO wealth equality NO true democracy"

This is nonetheless similar to the explanation's. In summary, I have two main questions:
1.) Again, I am unsure where "NO Equal power distribution" is in the conclusion.
2.) Additionally, I am a little unsure how: "Equal power distribution" in premise 1 = "Power" in premise 2. My main problem with diagramming this stimulus was because I thought "political power" and "equal political power" might be two different things.

I hope you can help me!

[Brook Miscoski]

Blueballoon,

The stimulus delivers its conclusion first and works backwards. Thus, my explanation starts at the end.

Premise 1: "True democracy DEPENDS on Equal Distribution of Power."

The word "depends" indicates that Equal Distribution is necessary true democracy. We get the following conditional statement and its contrapositive:

True Democracy Equal Distribution
Unequal Distribution No True Democracy

Keeping that in mind, take another look at Nikki's explanation. Her final construction of the stimulus shows how the contrapositives are used to reach the conclusion.

[SwanQueen]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

The key to answering this parallel reasoning question is to find the conclusion. As the word "since" modifies everything following the first statement, it is clear that the first sentence is the conclusion. Once you have isolated this conclusion, you will notice that it focuses on inequalities in wealth threatening the viability of democracy. Using the Double the Conclusion technique, we must therefore find the answer choice in which the existence of one thing or concept threatens something else. Answers with conclusions that do not fit within this general framework cannot be the correct choice and should be quickly dismissed.

Answer Choice (A): In this answer choice, the conclusion focuses upon two things being dangerous in combination with each other, which is different than one thing threatening another, therefore is a completely different type of conclusion.

Answer Choice (B): An argument could be made for this being a similar conclusion, since Sara going to the bookstore every time her pocket was full would threaten her ability to cover her living expenses. However, a closer look reveals differences. Here, instead of her ability to cover living expenses being threatened, the stimulus tells us that if she went to the bookstore every time her pocket was full, she would never have enough money to cover her living expenses. Also, in the stimulus, conditional reasoning is used within the premises, while there is no conditional reasoning in this answer choice.

Answer Choice (C): In this answer choice, the conclusion merely tells us about a thing that is generally difficult to do. There is no information to match with the stimulus conclusion about the existence of one thing threatening another.

Answer Choice (D): Here, we are just told that something is important, but can lead to negative consequences, so therefore it is hard to predict the result of that things occurrence.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. The conclusion tells us that repeated encroachments on one's leisure time, interfere (or threaten) the requirements of good health. Further, conditional reasoning similar to that in the conclusion is used to get to the ultimate conclusion.

In which chapter of the PowerScore LR Bible can I find info on this "Double the Conclusion" technique?

[Stephanie Oswalt]

In which chapter of the PowerScore LR Bible can I find info on this "Double the Conclusion" technique?

Hi SwanQueen,

"Double the Conclusion" is just another way of saying "parallel the conclusion" or "match the conclusion," meaning that the correct answer typically has a conclusion that has a similar intent as the conclusion in the stimulus.

You will see "match the conclusion" used in the Bible in Chapter 16.

Thank you!