PrepTest 73, Logical Reasoning 1, Question 17
Transcript
Question 17, When a questions asks you to find reasoning that is similar to other reasoning, we call it a parallel reasoning question. You're gonna be given five arguments. One of them will match the argument you've been given in the stimulus, structurally speaking. It'll have the same structure, same kind of conclusion, same kind of evidence, and use the evidence in the same way.
In order to match the structure, you have to understand and analyze the structure of the original argument. This is not a very long argument. And it does have a nice conclusory keyword, thus, to flag the conclusion. Thus, if the most qualified candidate is elected and Suarez is not elected, then Anderson will be.
There's a single piece of evidence, which is not quite an if/then statement, even though it begins with the word if. If Suarez is not the most qualified of the candidates for sheriff, then Anderson is. In other words, one or the other of them is the most qualified. Nobody else is more qualified than Suarez and Anderson. So that's the structure of the argument we'll be looking for in the answer choices, something that says two people or two things are the candidates for being the best, or the worst, or something.
And then it'll say, if that characteristic is found, and it's not one of them, it'll have to be the other one. That's the structure we'll be looking for in the answer choices. So answer choice A, so A is wrong because it doesn't have two people who are both the most of something. In this answer choice, the most here is being the lowest bidder.
So we would need Caldwell and Qiu to each be the only people who could possibly be the lowest bidder. And that's not what we have in A. So answer choice B, well, this one does work. If the lowest bidder on the sanitation contract is not Dillon, then it's Ramsey. So thats like Suarez and Anderson being the most qualified.
One of the two of these guys is the lowest bidder. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder, and it doesnt go to Dillon, it's gonna go to Ramsey. So this has that original, there's only two possible candidates. This one has the if it doesn't go to one person, and it still goes to someone who's one of those candidates, then it's gonna go to the other one, which we also had in the original.
So this argument does have the same structure as the original argument. It is our answer, let's see what's wrong with the other answer choices. Answer choice C, well, it's lacking the two people being the most qualified. Here, Kapshaw and Johnson, it doesn't say that one of them is definitely the lowest bidder or if one of them is the lowest bidder, the other one must be. It's not there, answer choice D, same deal.
We don't have two people, it's like if one of them is not this, then the other one is. This one is, if Holihan did not submit the lowest bid, then neither did Easton. So neither one of them is, and then answer choice E. Well, this one does finally have two people who are the lowest of something. If Perez isn't the lowest bidder, then Sullivan is, but the rest of it doesn't work.
If Sullivan does not get the contract, and Perez doesn't get it either. We want if Perez doesn't get it, then Sullivan will get it because, remember, Anderson did get it. And the rest of the argument is also flipped around. So we needed, if the most qualified candidate is elected, this says it won't be the lowest person.
It's not conditioned with an if. So for a variety of reasons, E is wrong. And that leaves B as the only one that matches
Read full transcriptIn order to match the structure, you have to understand and analyze the structure of the original argument. This is not a very long argument. And it does have a nice conclusory keyword, thus, to flag the conclusion. Thus, if the most qualified candidate is elected and Suarez is not elected, then Anderson will be.
There's a single piece of evidence, which is not quite an if/then statement, even though it begins with the word if. If Suarez is not the most qualified of the candidates for sheriff, then Anderson is. In other words, one or the other of them is the most qualified. Nobody else is more qualified than Suarez and Anderson. So that's the structure of the argument we'll be looking for in the answer choices, something that says two people or two things are the candidates for being the best, or the worst, or something.
And then it'll say, if that characteristic is found, and it's not one of them, it'll have to be the other one. That's the structure we'll be looking for in the answer choices. So answer choice A, so A is wrong because it doesn't have two people who are both the most of something. In this answer choice, the most here is being the lowest bidder.
So we would need Caldwell and Qiu to each be the only people who could possibly be the lowest bidder. And that's not what we have in A. So answer choice B, well, this one does work. If the lowest bidder on the sanitation contract is not Dillon, then it's Ramsey. So thats like Suarez and Anderson being the most qualified.
One of the two of these guys is the lowest bidder. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder, and it doesnt go to Dillon, it's gonna go to Ramsey. So this has that original, there's only two possible candidates. This one has the if it doesn't go to one person, and it still goes to someone who's one of those candidates, then it's gonna go to the other one, which we also had in the original.
So this argument does have the same structure as the original argument. It is our answer, let's see what's wrong with the other answer choices. Answer choice C, well, it's lacking the two people being the most qualified. Here, Kapshaw and Johnson, it doesn't say that one of them is definitely the lowest bidder or if one of them is the lowest bidder, the other one must be. It's not there, answer choice D, same deal.
We don't have two people, it's like if one of them is not this, then the other one is. This one is, if Holihan did not submit the lowest bid, then neither did Easton. So neither one of them is, and then answer choice E. Well, this one does finally have two people who are the lowest of something. If Perez isn't the lowest bidder, then Sullivan is, but the rest of it doesn't work.
If Sullivan does not get the contract, and Perez doesn't get it either. We want if Perez doesn't get it, then Sullivan will get it because, remember, Anderson did get it. And the rest of the argument is also flipped around. So we needed, if the most qualified candidate is elected, this says it won't be the lowest person.
It's not conditioned with an if. So for a variety of reasons, E is wrong. And that leaves B as the only one that matches
