- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Jan 20, 2014 12:00 am
#35255
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)
This argument consists of a lengthy premise followed by a lengthy conclusion. The premise suggests
that there is absolute maximum possible value for any given organ, which is effectively the lifespan
of the animal. An organ which is able to function long after the animal is dead has no use for the
animal. Thus, the efficiency of natural selection makes it unlikely for such an organ to exist, since
developing that organ would be inefficient. The question stem requires you to identify an underlying
principle in this argument and recognize the same principle in a different argument. One possible
principle would be, “It is irrational to increase the durability of something beyond the point where
that durability can offer additional value.”
Answer choice (A): This argument does address an issue of efficiency since stocking unneeded
goods is clearly inefficient. However, there is no discussion of improvement to match the stimulus’
description of an unusually long-lasting organ, so this answer cannot be correct.
Answer choice (B): While the body’s ability to compensate for deficiencies is astounding, the only
similarity that this argument bears to the stimulus is its use of the word “organ”. Remember that
it is not necessary to match the topic of an argument in parallel reasoning, and that this is often
an indicator of an incorrect answer. This answer choice does not address limitations to potential
improvement and does not match the reasoning in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice brings up the issue of durability, which is discussed in
the stimulus. However, in the stimulus, overall durability is used as a reason to eventually stop
improving an organ, while here, it is described as being so advantageous that it renders other cars
obsolete. The increased durability of this car model does offer additional value, as evidenced by its
popularity, so this answer cannot be correct. The principle in this answer choice might be something
like, “It is possible to improve something so much that other things are harmed as a result.”
Answer choice (D): Like incorrect answer choice (B), this answer brings up the body and body parts,
and should be viewed skeptically as a result. Like incorrect answer choice (C), this principle might
be described as, “It is possible to improve something so much that other things are harmed as a
result.” Unlike the stimulus, this answer does not address durability or efficiency.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Here, it is argued that car parts need not
outlast the car to which they belong, since improving the car part to such an extent would no longer
be cost-effective. By contrast with (C) and (D), durability does not go so far as to cause harm in this
example or in the stimulus; it simply becomes ineffective or inefficient.
Parallel Reasoning—PR. The correct answer choice is (E)
This argument consists of a lengthy premise followed by a lengthy conclusion. The premise suggests
that there is absolute maximum possible value for any given organ, which is effectively the lifespan
of the animal. An organ which is able to function long after the animal is dead has no use for the
animal. Thus, the efficiency of natural selection makes it unlikely for such an organ to exist, since
developing that organ would be inefficient. The question stem requires you to identify an underlying
principle in this argument and recognize the same principle in a different argument. One possible
principle would be, “It is irrational to increase the durability of something beyond the point where
that durability can offer additional value.”
Answer choice (A): This argument does address an issue of efficiency since stocking unneeded
goods is clearly inefficient. However, there is no discussion of improvement to match the stimulus’
description of an unusually long-lasting organ, so this answer cannot be correct.
Answer choice (B): While the body’s ability to compensate for deficiencies is astounding, the only
similarity that this argument bears to the stimulus is its use of the word “organ”. Remember that
it is not necessary to match the topic of an argument in parallel reasoning, and that this is often
an indicator of an incorrect answer. This answer choice does not address limitations to potential
improvement and does not match the reasoning in the stimulus.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice brings up the issue of durability, which is discussed in
the stimulus. However, in the stimulus, overall durability is used as a reason to eventually stop
improving an organ, while here, it is described as being so advantageous that it renders other cars
obsolete. The increased durability of this car model does offer additional value, as evidenced by its
popularity, so this answer cannot be correct. The principle in this answer choice might be something
like, “It is possible to improve something so much that other things are harmed as a result.”
Answer choice (D): Like incorrect answer choice (B), this answer brings up the body and body parts,
and should be viewed skeptically as a result. Like incorrect answer choice (C), this principle might
be described as, “It is possible to improve something so much that other things are harmed as a
result.” Unlike the stimulus, this answer does not address durability or efficiency.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Here, it is argued that car parts need not
outlast the car to which they belong, since improving the car part to such an extent would no longer
be cost-effective. By contrast with (C) and (D), durability does not go so far as to cause harm in this
example or in the stimulus; it simply becomes ineffective or inefficient.