- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue May 17, 2016 4:47 pm
#25017
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning—SN. The correct answer choice is (D)
The journalist concludes that the union members will go on strike. The author supports the conclusion by stating that independent arbitration would avert a strike, but only if both sides agreed to abide by the recommendation. We can diagram this relationship as follows:
The journalist states that the union is unlikely to agree to binding arbitration, so there is likely to be a strike. This is conditional reasoning, but contains two additional important features: 1) It predicts future actions of the union based on past actions; and 2) It is phrased in terms of likelihood, not certainty. We can diagram this relationship as follows:
This is the contrapositive of the conditional reasoning in the premise, and therefore it is valid reasoning. The correct answer choice also needs to include valid conditional reasoning using a statement and its contrapositive.
Answer choice (A): It would be helpful to diagram this answer choice in order to see if it matches the stimulus. The first sentence contains an “unless” condition, and can be diagramed as follows:
Answer choice (B): Rodriguez will donate her paintings to the museum only if the new wing is named after her. This is a conditional statement. The contrapositve would be if it is not named after her, then she will not donate her paintings, which we would expect to see as the conclusion of the argument. This argument concludes that she will donate her paintings so it does not match the reasoning in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): The reasoning here does not match the stimulus. The conclusion of the argument is that Reynolds and Khripkova would not make suitable business partners, since they squabble all the time. The argument supports the statement not by conditional reasoning, but by explaining how good business partners solve problems. This does not match the reasoning in the stimulus, so it is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If we diagram this argument we have the premise as follows:
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is phrased in terms of either/or reasoning. There is also conditional reasoning, but it is not necessary to analyze the conditional reasoning because the stimulus did not include either/or. As soon as an answer choice has reasoning that does not match the stimulus, we can eliminate it without further analysis.
Parallel Reasoning—SN. The correct answer choice is (D)
The journalist concludes that the union members will go on strike. The author supports the conclusion by stating that independent arbitration would avert a strike, but only if both sides agreed to abide by the recommendation. We can diagram this relationship as follows:
- Sufficient
Necessary
Indep. arbitration can stop strike 
Both sides agree to abide by ruling
The journalist states that the union is unlikely to agree to binding arbitration, so there is likely to be a strike. This is conditional reasoning, but contains two additional important features: 1) It predicts future actions of the union based on past actions; and 2) It is phrased in terms of likelihood, not certainty. We can diagram this relationship as follows:
- Sufficient Necessary
Both sides agree to abide by ruling Indep. arbitration can stop strike
This is the contrapositive of the conditional reasoning in the premise, and therefore it is valid reasoning. The correct answer choice also needs to include valid conditional reasoning using a statement and its contrapositive.
Answer choice (A): It would be helpful to diagram this answer choice in order to see if it matches the stimulus. The first sentence contains an “unless” condition, and can be diagramed as follows:
- Sufficient Necessary
Company downsize More stock issued
Answer choice (B): Rodriguez will donate her paintings to the museum only if the new wing is named after her. This is a conditional statement. The contrapositve would be if it is not named after her, then she will not donate her paintings, which we would expect to see as the conclusion of the argument. This argument concludes that she will donate her paintings so it does not match the reasoning in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): The reasoning here does not match the stimulus. The conclusion of the argument is that Reynolds and Khripkova would not make suitable business partners, since they squabble all the time. The argument supports the statement not by conditional reasoning, but by explaining how good business partners solve problems. This does not match the reasoning in the stimulus, so it is incorrect.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. If we diagram this argument we have the premise as follows:
- Sufficient Necessary
Lopez wins Sponsors keep him hydrated
- Sufficient Necessary
Sponsors keep him hydrated Lopez wins marathon
Answer choice (E): This answer choice is phrased in terms of either/or reasoning. There is also conditional reasoning, but it is not necessary to analyze the conditional reasoning because the stimulus did not include either/or. As soon as an answer choice has reasoning that does not match the stimulus, we can eliminate it without further analysis.