- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Sep 02, 2013 11:00 pm
#33414
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
The author believes that car X is more fuel efficient than car Y, because the two cars yielded the same average fuel mileage even though car X was driven in a less fuel-efficient manner than car Y. The argument is structured as follows:
Instead of spending valuable time drawing up fuel-efficiency formulas, try the Test of Abstraction: two parties did equally well at a competition, even though one of them was put at a disadvantage relative to the other. So, the one that overcame the disadvantage must have compensated for it in some way.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice does not match our prephrase. Furthermore, the conclusion we are looking for represents a comparative claim, not an absolute one (“car X is more efficient than car Y,” not “car X and Y use fuel differently”).
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Just like the two cars, the two hamsters fared the same by gaining the same amount of weight. However, our hamster ate more than the neighbors’ hamster—a disadvantage our hamster had to compensate for, just like the BMW had to compensate for being driven in a less fuel-efficient manner. The hamster compensated for it by burning more calories; the BMW compensated by being a more fuel-efficient car. This answer choice matches the conclusion of the argument and also satisfies our Test of Abstraction.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice may be attractive, because its subject matter is not too far off (biking instead of driving), and the conclusion seems logically sound. However, the pattern of reasoning in the argument is entirely different: here, the author concludes that pedaling downhill yields the best results, because coasting downhill is faster than pedaling on a horizontal path. In other words, by combining two ways of achieving a given objective, one can achieve that objective even better. Clearly, this line of reasoning has no parallel in the stimulus.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect, because it fails the Premise Test: unlike the two cars yielding the same average fuel mileage, the author gave a lower average estimate than his friend. Furthermore, the conclusion here is not logically valid. There is no reason to believe that the author overestimated the piece’s value whenever he gave the same estimate as his friend.
Answer choice (E): If Jean can see well wearing prescription glasses, obviously her vision is not as good without them. This argument seems logically sound, but its pattern of reasoning bears no resemblance to the one in the stimulus.
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B)
The author believes that car X is more fuel efficient than car Y, because the two cars yielded the same average fuel mileage even though car X was driven in a less fuel-efficient manner than car Y. The argument is structured as follows:
- Premise:
Car X and car Y yielded the same average fuel mileage.
Premise: Car X was driven in a less fuel-efficient manner than car Y was.
Conclusion: Car X is more fuel efficient than car Y.
Instead of spending valuable time drawing up fuel-efficiency formulas, try the Test of Abstraction: two parties did equally well at a competition, even though one of them was put at a disadvantage relative to the other. So, the one that overcame the disadvantage must have compensated for it in some way.
Answer choice (A): This answer choice does not match our prephrase. Furthermore, the conclusion we are looking for represents a comparative claim, not an absolute one (“car X is more efficient than car Y,” not “car X and Y use fuel differently”).
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. Just like the two cars, the two hamsters fared the same by gaining the same amount of weight. However, our hamster ate more than the neighbors’ hamster—a disadvantage our hamster had to compensate for, just like the BMW had to compensate for being driven in a less fuel-efficient manner. The hamster compensated for it by burning more calories; the BMW compensated by being a more fuel-efficient car. This answer choice matches the conclusion of the argument and also satisfies our Test of Abstraction.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice may be attractive, because its subject matter is not too far off (biking instead of driving), and the conclusion seems logically sound. However, the pattern of reasoning in the argument is entirely different: here, the author concludes that pedaling downhill yields the best results, because coasting downhill is faster than pedaling on a horizontal path. In other words, by combining two ways of achieving a given objective, one can achieve that objective even better. Clearly, this line of reasoning has no parallel in the stimulus.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect, because it fails the Premise Test: unlike the two cars yielding the same average fuel mileage, the author gave a lower average estimate than his friend. Furthermore, the conclusion here is not logically valid. There is no reason to believe that the author overestimated the piece’s value whenever he gave the same estimate as his friend.
Answer choice (E): If Jean can see well wearing prescription glasses, obviously her vision is not as good without them. This argument seems logically sound, but its pattern of reasoning bears no resemblance to the one in the stimulus.