#25: Is the sufficient condition being "indicted" and required condition "only if they are convicted"? I'm slightly confused.
PT 23: section 2
#25: I think the reasoning pattern is basically "this will only produce this result" - centrally planned allocation will result in at least 5% debt - (B) - pollution occurs only where there is a lot of cars. I chose (D) originally. But (D) is incorrect because of mistaken reversal? - being a famous rock star is a necessary condition to receive large regular loyalties - and owning their recording companies is just a side fact?
PT 22 - 2/25
Students make this into a tougher question than it needs to be. They think they know something they do not know and were not told (about the relationship between indictments and convictions); they think about the conditions in the premises and not the conclusion; and, most importantly, they fail to realize Choices A, C, D and E are just plain incorrect.
In this argument, in the premises, indictment is a sufficient condition for resignation and conviction is a necessary condition for resignation. However, for the conclusion they are both alleged to be sufficient conditions. What does this mean?
First, it means this argument is baseless. We know how many people think indictment is sufficient for resignation (50%). We have no idea how many think conviction is sufficient for resignation. (We know how many think it is necessary (35%) but we do not know how many think it is sufficient. Remember, just because something is a necessary condition does not mean it is a sufficient condition). So, this conclusion cannot be reached logically on these facts.
So, what mistake did the person making the argument commit? In the second half of the conclusion, what they claimed was a sufficient condition (believed they should resign “if convicted”), was treated as though it was a necessary condition (the one which their premise stated was true.) In other words, if they had concluded “more people believe that elected officials should resign if indicted than believe they should resign only if convicted,” they would have a valid argument. In their conclusion, they confused a sufficient condition for a required one. Choice B.
As far as the other response options, Choice A is not a flaw. That is done accurately all the time (like polling data). I cannot imagine what ambiguity Choice C is claiming. I think that is a trap answer for those who were confused by the argument and did not figure why they were confused. Choice D is also not a problem. As I wrote above, a valid conclusion could have been drawn about a specific belief based upon queries about two different beliefs if the conclusion was otherwise accurate. Choice E is simply not true. There is nothing self-contradictory about these premises. One is a sufficient condition while the other is a necessary condition - two different things.
PT 23 - 2/25
Although many of the well-know commercial prep companies teach it this way, I think it is a mistake to take these things apart and try to match up components to find the correct response. That is why these questions take students too much time and they hate them. The easiest way to handle a parallel reasoning question is to look at the argument and determine its structure. In this case:
All A (centrally planned) are Not B (efficient allocation of resources)
All C (debt < 5%) are B.
All A are Not C
Now, let’s look at the response options:
Choice A? All A (mammals) are Not B (winged) because C are A and C are B. First, let’s flip it around so it matches the direction of the initial argument. All C are A; All C are B; therefore All A are Not B. We can see this is clearly different. (The second term in both premises is not the same as it is in the initial argument). Strike it.
Choice B? All A (rural districts) are Not B (polluted) because All B are C (a lot of cars) and All A are Not C. Once we place this in the correct order to match the initial argument and flip around the two premises - All A are Not C; All B are C; therefore All A are Not B - we can see this is a perfect match (except of the fact what we labeled as B in the initial argument has been labeled as C in this argument and vice versa, but that is inconsequential.) Mark it.
Choice C? All A (ungulates) are B (herbivores). Most B are Not C (people attackers). This is different enough already. Strike it.
Choice D? All A who are B are C. This is different enough already. Strike it.
Choice E? All A (fund managers) are B (knowers of inside traders). All C are D (known to fund managers). This is already different enough. Strike it.
In addition, it is okay if you did not want to go through the entirety of Choices A and B to see if they were correct on first glace. It was sufficient to realize they were not obviously incorrect, keep them in play, then move on. Choices C, D and E eliminate very quickly using this method. Then you can go back to Choices A and B - knowing one of them is the correct response - and figure it out very quickly.