- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Thu May 11, 2017 3:08 pm
#34749
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
People who get their protein from fish have healthier diets that those who get their protein from
red meat, but if everyone were to switch to fish protein, that would kill off the fish population,
making such a diet unsustainable. Thus, the author concludes, this diet should not be recommended
universally.
Premise: A diet based on fish protein is healthier than one based on red meat protein.
Premise: If everyone were to adopt such a diet, the marine species would go extinct,
making the diet unsustainable.
Conclusion: Universal adoption of the diet should not be recommended.
The stimulus is followed by a Parallel Reasoning question, so the correct answer choice will likely
relay an argument that is similar in the abstract: One choice is better than another but if everyone
made that choice it would be impossible, so it should not be universally recommended.
Answer choice (A): Unlike the stimulus, in which good advice becomes impracticable when
universally recommended, this choice warns against particular advice (taking a vitamin E
supplement) based on the fact that it is not definitely safe for everyone. Although this choice ends
with a warning against a universal recommendation, the author arrives at that conclusion based on
different reasoning from that found in the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This choice provides that if tobacco taxes are too high, revenue might decrease,
so revenue might need to be supplemented. This is very different from the conclusion in the stimulus,
which warns against making a particular recommendation to everyone, so this choice should be ruled
out of contention fairly quickly.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. People would be better off if they were to
limit their spending and save or invest as much as possible. If everyone were to do this, however, that
would cause a recession, making the approach impossible. Thus, this should not be recommended to
everyone. One choice is better than another but if everyone made that choice it would be impossible,
so it should not be universally recommended.
Answer choice (D): This choice provides that lawmakers would have more time to do their jobs if
they didn’t campaign so much, but that would likely preclude their reelections, so the fact that they
do spend so much time campaigning shouldn’t be surprising. This is clearly distinguishable from
the line of reasoning reflected in the stimulus, so this cannot be the right answer to this Parallel
Reasoning question.
Answer choice (E): Unlike the stimulus, this choice does not deal with a recommendation of any
kind, and unlike the conclusion of the stimulus, which is that a particular, good recommendation
should not be universally advised, the conclusion of this choice is that proper designations are not
always clear, so the reasoning in this choice fails to parallel that found in the stimulus.
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)
People who get their protein from fish have healthier diets that those who get their protein from
red meat, but if everyone were to switch to fish protein, that would kill off the fish population,
making such a diet unsustainable. Thus, the author concludes, this diet should not be recommended
universally.
Premise: A diet based on fish protein is healthier than one based on red meat protein. Premise: If everyone were to adopt such a diet, the marine species would go extinct, making the diet unsustainable. Conclusion: Universal adoption of the diet should not be recommended.The stimulus is followed by a Parallel Reasoning question, so the correct answer choice will likely
relay an argument that is similar in the abstract: One choice is better than another but if everyone
made that choice it would be impossible, so it should not be universally recommended.
Answer choice (A): Unlike the stimulus, in which good advice becomes impracticable when
universally recommended, this choice warns against particular advice (taking a vitamin E
supplement) based on the fact that it is not definitely safe for everyone. Although this choice ends
with a warning against a universal recommendation, the author arrives at that conclusion based on
different reasoning from that found in the stimulus.
Answer choice (B): This choice provides that if tobacco taxes are too high, revenue might decrease,
so revenue might need to be supplemented. This is very different from the conclusion in the stimulus,
which warns against making a particular recommendation to everyone, so this choice should be ruled
out of contention fairly quickly.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. People would be better off if they were to
limit their spending and save or invest as much as possible. If everyone were to do this, however, that
would cause a recession, making the approach impossible. Thus, this should not be recommended to
everyone. One choice is better than another but if everyone made that choice it would be impossible,
so it should not be universally recommended.
Answer choice (D): This choice provides that lawmakers would have more time to do their jobs if
they didn’t campaign so much, but that would likely preclude their reelections, so the fact that they
do spend so much time campaigning shouldn’t be surprising. This is clearly distinguishable from
the line of reasoning reflected in the stimulus, so this cannot be the right answer to this Parallel
Reasoning question.
Answer choice (E): Unlike the stimulus, this choice does not deal with a recommendation of any
kind, and unlike the conclusion of the stimulus, which is that a particular, good recommendation
should not be universally advised, the conclusion of this choice is that proper designations are not
always clear, so the reasoning in this choice fails to parallel that found in the stimulus.