- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Mar 23, 2013 11:00 pm
#36686
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
Test takers who can quickly and appropriately identify common methods of reasoning will tend to do
very well on Parallel Reasoning questions. The first step in classifying any argument is to identify the
conclusion. Here, the conclusion is, “Taking advanced mathematics courses should increase a student’s
grade point average.” The basis for this conclusion is the observation that students who take advanced
math classes tend to have higher grade point averages than students who do not take such courses. Of
course, the correlation between advanced mathematics courses and high grade point averages does
not necessarily mean that taking such courses will increase a student’s grade point average; this is a
mistaken attribution of causality. Being intelligent may cause some students to take advanced math
courses and have a high grade point average. That is, intelligence could be the cause for both the courses
taken by a student and the student’s grade point average (thus advanced courses and GPA would be
unrelated from a causal standpoint, as they would both be effects of a common cause). Less intelligent
students who take advanced mathematics courses would likely even decrease their grade point averages.
So, how can this stimulus be used to prephrase characteristics of the correct answer choice? First, the
conclusion of the stimulus must be paralleled by the conclusion of the correct answer choice. The
correct conclusion should be a prediction, rather than a statement of fact. It should indicate that taking
some action should yield a certain result. Furthermore, this action must be based on evidence that it (the
action) is positively correlated to the result. Finally, the correct answer choice must be flawed in the
same manner as the stimulus. So any valid argument is automatically incorrect, as is any argument not
based on a mistaken attribution of causality.
Answer choice (A): The conclusion of this argument is a statement of fact and does not parallel the
conclusion of the stimulus. Additionally, this argument is not logically flawed, since the stated evidence
does suggest that fur color is in large measure hereditary. Since neither the conclusion nor the validity of
this argument matches the stimulus, answer choice (A) is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The claim that water can cause intoxication is certainly a mistaken attribution
of causality. However, there is no prediction (e.g. “Drinking more water should lead to increased
intoxication”). Also, the conclusion is not based on evidence that the amount of water consumed is
positively linked to the degree of intoxication. It is simply based on the fact that water is present in
several solutions of alcoholic beverages.
Answer choice (C): Here, the conclusion is a less of a prediction (“something is likely to happen”)
than a mere possibility (“these two things may be related”). Further, is the attribution of causality
mistaken? Probably not. This argument seems reasonably well supported, unlike that of the stimulus,
which is clearly invalid. Also, the evidence here is structured differently than the evidence in the
stimulus. This evidence focuses solely on overweight people who eat diets consisting primarily of fats
and carbohydrates, rather than comparing those who eat such diets with those who do not. The correct
answer must match the stimulus much more closely.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This answer contains a prediction and incorrect
causality. There is a positive correlation (given as a prediction) between the number of shoes a person
owns and the frequency with which they exercise. Also, the causality here is most likely reversed, as it
is rather more likely that exercising frequently causes a person to buy new shoes more frequently than it
is that owning two or more pairs of running shoes causes a person to start exercising more often. So this
answer matches the stimulus in its conclusion, its logical validity, and its use of evidence.
Answer choice (E): Test takers should quickly determine that this answer has the correct type of
conclusion (the word “should” appears in the conclusion of the stimulus and the conclusion of this
answer choice). The type of evidence used here is also quite similar to that used in the stimulus.
However, like answer choices (A) and (C), this reasoning seems valid. Whether or not the conclusion of
this argument is in fact true, it is at least a logical interpretation of the evidence. Thus, answer choice (E)
can also be eliminated.
Parallel Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
Test takers who can quickly and appropriately identify common methods of reasoning will tend to do
very well on Parallel Reasoning questions. The first step in classifying any argument is to identify the
conclusion. Here, the conclusion is, “Taking advanced mathematics courses should increase a student’s
grade point average.” The basis for this conclusion is the observation that students who take advanced
math classes tend to have higher grade point averages than students who do not take such courses. Of
course, the correlation between advanced mathematics courses and high grade point averages does
not necessarily mean that taking such courses will increase a student’s grade point average; this is a
mistaken attribution of causality. Being intelligent may cause some students to take advanced math
courses and have a high grade point average. That is, intelligence could be the cause for both the courses
taken by a student and the student’s grade point average (thus advanced courses and GPA would be
unrelated from a causal standpoint, as they would both be effects of a common cause). Less intelligent
students who take advanced mathematics courses would likely even decrease their grade point averages.
So, how can this stimulus be used to prephrase characteristics of the correct answer choice? First, the
conclusion of the stimulus must be paralleled by the conclusion of the correct answer choice. The
correct conclusion should be a prediction, rather than a statement of fact. It should indicate that taking
some action should yield a certain result. Furthermore, this action must be based on evidence that it (the
action) is positively correlated to the result. Finally, the correct answer choice must be flawed in the
same manner as the stimulus. So any valid argument is automatically incorrect, as is any argument not
based on a mistaken attribution of causality.
Answer choice (A): The conclusion of this argument is a statement of fact and does not parallel the
conclusion of the stimulus. Additionally, this argument is not logically flawed, since the stated evidence
does suggest that fur color is in large measure hereditary. Since neither the conclusion nor the validity of
this argument matches the stimulus, answer choice (A) is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): The claim that water can cause intoxication is certainly a mistaken attribution
of causality. However, there is no prediction (e.g. “Drinking more water should lead to increased
intoxication”). Also, the conclusion is not based on evidence that the amount of water consumed is
positively linked to the degree of intoxication. It is simply based on the fact that water is present in
several solutions of alcoholic beverages.
Answer choice (C): Here, the conclusion is a less of a prediction (“something is likely to happen”)
than a mere possibility (“these two things may be related”). Further, is the attribution of causality
mistaken? Probably not. This argument seems reasonably well supported, unlike that of the stimulus,
which is clearly invalid. Also, the evidence here is structured differently than the evidence in the
stimulus. This evidence focuses solely on overweight people who eat diets consisting primarily of fats
and carbohydrates, rather than comparing those who eat such diets with those who do not. The correct
answer must match the stimulus much more closely.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. This answer contains a prediction and incorrect
causality. There is a positive correlation (given as a prediction) between the number of shoes a person
owns and the frequency with which they exercise. Also, the causality here is most likely reversed, as it
is rather more likely that exercising frequently causes a person to buy new shoes more frequently than it
is that owning two or more pairs of running shoes causes a person to start exercising more often. So this
answer matches the stimulus in its conclusion, its logical validity, and its use of evidence.
Answer choice (E): Test takers should quickly determine that this answer has the correct type of
conclusion (the word “should” appears in the conclusion of the stimulus and the conclusion of this
answer choice). The type of evidence used here is also quite similar to that used in the stimulus.
However, like answer choices (A) and (C), this reasoning seems valid. Whether or not the conclusion of
this argument is in fact true, it is at least a logical interpretation of the evidence. Thus, answer choice (E)
can also be eliminated.