- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8916
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jun 30, 2017 6:39 pm
#36624
Complete Question Expanation
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
The Politician concludes that people should not be legally required to wear seat belts because seat
belts are not required in another type of vehicle (or situation) that is even more dangerous even when
seat belts are worn. In drawing this conclusion, the Politician makes a comparison to a situation that is
somewhat similar, but not similar enough to provide valid support for the conclusion. The premises have
two notable features that must be paralleled in the correct answer choice:
1. A comparison that is not reasonably similar enough to be valid.
2. The situation being compared is even more dangerous even though the activity/restriction in
question (“seat belts” in the stimulus) is performed.
Interestingly, none of the answer choices matches the wording of the conclusion exactly, but the intent
of the wording in the conclusion is matched (“does not require” in this context is the same as “should
allow”) in several of the answers.
Answer choice (A): This answer does not contain a comparison, so it is automatically incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The comparison in this answer is not the same because illness and stress are similar
enough to be valid, and there is also no implied danger in the activities mentioned in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer contains the same flaw as the
argument. In this case, standing on a roller coaster is compared to standing on the edge of the cliff,
and this comparison is not close enough to be valid. Also, the comparative danger feature is addressed
perfectly: sitting on the edge of a cliff (the implied appropriate way to ride a roller coaster) is more
dangerous than standing on a roller coaster.
Answer choice (D): There are multiple points of concern with this answer. First, the intent of the
conclusion differs from that in the stimulus, because the stimulus concludes that something should
be allowed (no seat belts), while this answer choice concludes that something should be disallowed
(smoking in a public place). Second, the situation being discussed in this answer choice shifts from a
public place to a private place. Third, the situation being compared (“drinking water) is not found to be
more harmful than the situation in the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This answer does not contain a discussion of comparative danger, and therefore this
answer can also be eliminated quickly.
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
The Politician concludes that people should not be legally required to wear seat belts because seat
belts are not required in another type of vehicle (or situation) that is even more dangerous even when
seat belts are worn. In drawing this conclusion, the Politician makes a comparison to a situation that is
somewhat similar, but not similar enough to provide valid support for the conclusion. The premises have
two notable features that must be paralleled in the correct answer choice:
1. A comparison that is not reasonably similar enough to be valid. 2. The situation being compared is even more dangerous even though the activity/restriction in question (“seat belts” in the stimulus) is performed.Interestingly, none of the answer choices matches the wording of the conclusion exactly, but the intent
of the wording in the conclusion is matched (“does not require” in this context is the same as “should
allow”) in several of the answers.
Answer choice (A): This answer does not contain a comparison, so it is automatically incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The comparison in this answer is not the same because illness and stress are similar
enough to be valid, and there is also no implied danger in the activities mentioned in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. This answer contains the same flaw as the
argument. In this case, standing on a roller coaster is compared to standing on the edge of the cliff,
and this comparison is not close enough to be valid. Also, the comparative danger feature is addressed
perfectly: sitting on the edge of a cliff (the implied appropriate way to ride a roller coaster) is more
dangerous than standing on a roller coaster.
Answer choice (D): There are multiple points of concern with this answer. First, the intent of the
conclusion differs from that in the stimulus, because the stimulus concludes that something should
be allowed (no seat belts), while this answer choice concludes that something should be disallowed
(smoking in a public place). Second, the situation being discussed in this answer choice shifts from a
public place to a private place. Third, the situation being compared (“drinking water) is not found to be
more harmful than the situation in the conclusion.
Answer choice (E): This answer does not contain a discussion of comparative danger, and therefore this
answer can also be eliminated quickly.