- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:17 pm
#23230
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
While the deterrent potential of any punishment depends on (1) how severe the punishment is, and (2) how likely it is that one will receive it, a punishment that is too severe can lower the likelihood that one will receive it. In other words, too severe a punishment can have an effect contrary to the one anticipated.
Before proceeding to look for a parallel among the five answer choices, think of this counterintuitive argument in the abstract: when attaining a particular goal depends on two factors and one of them is "cranked up" in excess of what is necessary, this may cancel out the effect of the other and compromise our ability to attain the goal in question.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If job success depends on the quality of one's dissertation and the amount of time spent working on it, mishandling one of these two factors can negatively impact the other and have an overall effect that is contrary to the one anticipated (i.e. it can diminish the likelihood of attaining a first academic job). Because this line of reasoning is analogous to the one contained in the stimulus, this answer choice is correct.
Answer choice (B): Even though this answer choice observes a paradox between driving safe cars and being a dangerous driver (the safer the car, the more dangerous the driver), the conclusion test can quickly eliminate it (the conclusion that the safest cars are likely to be driven by the most dangerous drivers has no match in the stimulus).
Answer choice (C): Some of the advantages of the new surgical technique (living longer) might be outweighed by its disadvantages (higher mortality rate). The idea of weighing the pros and cons of a given approach has no match in the stimulus, which is why this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): When choosing between two courses of action in trying to achieve a certain goal, it is best to go with the one that is easier to implement. This idea has no parallel in the stimulus. Furthermore, the conclusion of this answer choice is a recommendation ("governments... should put their energies into increasing their hotel space"), not an observation ("increasing the penalty may decrease the deterrent power of judicial punishment"). Either the premise or the conclusion test can quickly eliminate this answer choice.
Answer choice (E): The only thing that can conceivably make this answer choice attractive is the counterintuitive idea that raising prices can actually improve an artist's reputation. Because neither the premises, nor the conclusion, are matched in the stimulus, this answer choice is incorrect.
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
While the deterrent potential of any punishment depends on (1) how severe the punishment is, and (2) how likely it is that one will receive it, a punishment that is too severe can lower the likelihood that one will receive it. In other words, too severe a punishment can have an effect contrary to the one anticipated.
Before proceeding to look for a parallel among the five answer choices, think of this counterintuitive argument in the abstract: when attaining a particular goal depends on two factors and one of them is "cranked up" in excess of what is necessary, this may cancel out the effect of the other and compromise our ability to attain the goal in question.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. If job success depends on the quality of one's dissertation and the amount of time spent working on it, mishandling one of these two factors can negatively impact the other and have an overall effect that is contrary to the one anticipated (i.e. it can diminish the likelihood of attaining a first academic job). Because this line of reasoning is analogous to the one contained in the stimulus, this answer choice is correct.
Answer choice (B): Even though this answer choice observes a paradox between driving safe cars and being a dangerous driver (the safer the car, the more dangerous the driver), the conclusion test can quickly eliminate it (the conclusion that the safest cars are likely to be driven by the most dangerous drivers has no match in the stimulus).
Answer choice (C): Some of the advantages of the new surgical technique (living longer) might be outweighed by its disadvantages (higher mortality rate). The idea of weighing the pros and cons of a given approach has no match in the stimulus, which is why this answer choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): When choosing between two courses of action in trying to achieve a certain goal, it is best to go with the one that is easier to implement. This idea has no parallel in the stimulus. Furthermore, the conclusion of this answer choice is a recommendation ("governments... should put their energies into increasing their hotel space"), not an observation ("increasing the penalty may decrease the deterrent power of judicial punishment"). Either the premise or the conclusion test can quickly eliminate this answer choice.
Answer choice (E): The only thing that can conceivably make this answer choice attractive is the counterintuitive idea that raising prices can actually improve an artist's reputation. Because neither the premises, nor the conclusion, are matched in the stimulus, this answer choice is incorrect.