- Mon Mar 27, 2023 2:43 pm
I'll try to be a bit briefer, but this is a fairly complex conditional argument, so it does require some detailed explanation.
If you're familiar with conditional reasoning, including how to diagram it, and how to take the contrapositive, then the briefest way that I can explain the question is that the argument in the stimulus has two necessary conditions, one of them fails to occur, then via the contrapositive, the conclusion validly infers that the sufficient condition does not occur. Answer B is the only answer that follows this exactly the same, which is why the reasoning is parallel and it is correct.
In case that wasn't clear enough, I can explain the answer by diagramming the conditional argument in the stimulus and the correct answer choice, and show how they are exactly parallel in form. However, if you are not familiar with conditional reasoning, this explanation probably won't make a lot of sense. (In that case, you should study conditional reasoning as soon as possible).
In the stimulus, the buyer states that he or she will buy a garment "only if" it is fashionable and not too expensive for their clientele. This means that the terms after the words "only if" (fashionable) and (not too expensive), are both necessary for the buyer to buy the garment. You could restate the sentence to say "If the buyer buys a garment, then it is fashionable and not too expensive for the clientele."
You could diagram the sentence:
BG -> F + not TEC
(Where BG stands for Buy Garment, F stands for Fashionable, and not TEC stands for not Too Expensive for Clientele.)
This argument uses the contrapositive. (Again if you are unfamiliar with the term, you will definitely want to study this concept).
The contrapositive to the above diagram is:
not F or TEC -> not BG
(which would be read, if it is not Fashionable or it is too expensive for the clientele, then the buyer will not buy the garment.)
The stimulus then states that the evening dress by Peruka is too expensive for the clientele (TEC), so the buyer will not buy the garment (not BG).
Answer B perfectly parallels this reasoning and is correct.
You could diagram the first sentence of Answer B
PI -> FSE + CS
(where PI means pass inspection, FSE means free of sharp edges and CS means completely sealed)
The contrapositive would be:
Not FSE or not CS -> not PI
(which would be read, if it's not free of sharp edges or not completely sealed, then it will not pass inspection)
The stuffed hippo is not completely sealed (not CS), so it will not pass inspection (not PI).
If you compare the diagrams, you should see that they are exactly parallel in form (i.e. the terms match up exactly).