- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#26498
Complete Question Explanation
Question #12: Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
The stimulus describes a dilemma. You have two competing objectives - to keep a confidence and answer questions truthfully. However, keeping one promise would effectively break the other. In other words, the objectives are mutually exclusive. On that basis, the author concludes that one cannot be expected to achieve both objectives simultaneously.
Answer choice (A) is the correct answer choice, as it provides a direct parallel to the idea discussed above: having a certain right (to say what we want) conflicts with an obligation (to civility). So, the two cannot be achieved simultaneously.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect, because neither the premises nor the conclusion match those in the stimulus. First, we don't have two competing objectives. Furthermore, the reasoning in this answer choice is conditional (the conclusion uses the contrapositive). No such parallels exist in the original argument.
Answer choice (C) describes a Catch-22, a situation where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is markedly different from the logic of the original argument, in which neither of the two courses of action have a negative outcome: their objectives couldn't be achieved simultaneously, but neither objective carried a particular downside.
Answer choice (D) is incorrect for the same exact reason as answer choice (B).
Answer choice (E) is an attractive, but ultimately incorrect. Just like the original argument, it describes two courses of action that are incompatible with each other: both new employees and additional overtime would dramatically increase labor costs, which we apparently cannot afford to do. In contrast with the original argument, however, here the author concludes that we need to keep our business hours as they stand: in other words, neither course of action should be pursued. Compare this to the conclusion in the original argument, which held that both objectives cannot be achieved simultaneously (but perhaps either of them can be achieved without the other).
"Not both" is not the same as "neither." Compare the following two statements:
med). This is the nature of the relationship in the stimulus. The second claim forbids the occurrence of either event. This is the case with answer choice (E).
Question #12: Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)
The stimulus describes a dilemma. You have two competing objectives - to keep a confidence and answer questions truthfully. However, keeping one promise would effectively break the other. In other words, the objectives are mutually exclusive. On that basis, the author concludes that one cannot be expected to achieve both objectives simultaneously.
Answer choice (A) is the correct answer choice, as it provides a direct parallel to the idea discussed above: having a certain right (to say what we want) conflicts with an obligation (to civility). So, the two cannot be achieved simultaneously.
Answer choice (B) is incorrect, because neither the premises nor the conclusion match those in the stimulus. First, we don't have two competing objectives. Furthermore, the reasoning in this answer choice is conditional (the conclusion uses the contrapositive). No such parallels exist in the original argument.
Answer choice (C) describes a Catch-22, a situation where you're damned if you do, damned if you don't. This is markedly different from the logic of the original argument, in which neither of the two courses of action have a negative outcome: their objectives couldn't be achieved simultaneously, but neither objective carried a particular downside.
Answer choice (D) is incorrect for the same exact reason as answer choice (B).
Answer choice (E) is an attractive, but ultimately incorrect. Just like the original argument, it describes two courses of action that are incompatible with each other: both new employees and additional overtime would dramatically increase labor costs, which we apparently cannot afford to do. In contrast with the original argument, however, here the author concludes that we need to keep our business hours as they stand: in other words, neither course of action should be pursued. Compare this to the conclusion in the original argument, which held that both objectives cannot be achieved simultaneously (but perhaps either of them can be achieved without the other).
"Not both" is not the same as "neither." Compare the following two statements:
- You cannot both go to law school and go to med school.
You can neither go to law school nor go to med school.
med). This is the nature of the relationship in the stimulus. The second claim forbids the occurrence of either event. This is the case with answer choice (E).