Welcome! Check out our free B-School Guides to learn how you compare with other applicants.

## Ugh... parallel reasoning - always tough

tagged by:

This topic has 3 expert replies and 16 member replies
Goto page
prashant misra Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
25 Aug 2011
Posted:
101 messages
Sun Oct 02, 2011 7:53 am
i thought that option B seems to be more parallel still not able to understand why option A is correct

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!

### GMAT/MBA Expert

David@VeritasPrep GMAT Instructor
Joined
22 Feb 2010
Posted:
1523 messages
Followed by:
326 members
Thanked:
814 times
GMAT Score:
770
Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:33 am
Have you read the explanation by rkanthilal quoted in the posting above?

It is true that B is closer in the way that it is written. But that is not what parallel reasoning is about. It requires you to chose the choice that uses the same logic. In the posts above someone indicates that on parallel reasoning the premises must be in the same order. As I explained in an above post on this thread this is not true. It is the logic that must be the same not the order in which it is written.

B is pretty much valid, whereas the stimulus is not -- so B cannot be the correct answer. Look at B, we are told that "Studies show that large dogs lives shorter lives, on average, than small dogs do." So we must accept this as a fact. Now B continues on to logically apply this by stating that the smaller dog "MIGHT BE EXPECTED" to live longer. This is a proper use of that study. Notice the conclusion does not say that the smaller dog WILL LIVE LONGER, or that if he does live longer that he must have been smaller. Do you see how B is an appropriate use of statistics?

The stimulus is an inappropriate use of statistics. The first statement is similar, "Studies show that children who watch too much television are more likely than others to become obese adults." But now the use that is made of this is too strong. It says that because one person is obese and the other is not, the obese one MUST HAVE watched more tv as a child. Notice the "MUST HAVE" that makes the stimulus invalid. You cannot overgeneralize from "more likely" to a "must have."

So the stimulus is very different from B in the conclusion it draws. B is basically valid, the stimulus is an over-generalization.

Hope that helps!

_________________
David Newland, JD, MA, MAE
GMAT Instructor, Tutor, and Author
Veritas Prep

Access The Veritas Prep GMAT Simulator™- for FREE! Veritas Prep has launched their new GMAT Practice Test. Sign up to access the realistic testing environment and challenge yourself today! Get Started Now.
Gaurav 2013-fall Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
22 Feb 2012
Posted:
277 messages
Thanked:
10 times
Test Date:
2012
Target GMAT Score:
800
GMAT Score:
700
Tue Mar 13, 2012 2:50 am
i found this one easy. straight A

vishal.pathak Really wants to Beat The GMAT!
Joined
22 Sep 2011
Posted:
176 messages
Thanked:
5 times
Sat Mar 24, 2012 10:49 pm
David@VeritasPrep wrote:
OA is A.

“Mimic the reasoning” is a rare type of question but an important one to study. Not only in case you do get one of these questions on the test, but also because this type of question helps you to understand reasoning in general.

rkanthilal - You are doing this well. With mimic questions I like to make a list of the characteristics I am looking for in the correct answer as well. Another great explanation.

Here is the official explanation:

In this Mimic the Reasoning question, the original argument is flawed. Thus the correct answer will reproduce the error in the original argument. Based on the premise that too much television leads to a greater likelihood of obesity, the author draws the conclusion that someone who is obese MUST have watched more television than someone who is not obese. The argument ignores possible alternative causes for obesity (diet, genetic predisposition, etc.). Television viewing ---> obesity does not mean that Obesity ---> television. Any correct answer should contain the same flawed reasoning that IF A, THEN B also implies IF B, THEN A.

Answer (A) is correct because the premise is that a bigger Sunday ad leads to more items sold. The erroneous conclusion is that if more items were sold, the cause must have been a bigger Sunday ad. This argument ignores possible alternative causes for the number of items sold (location, selection, etc.). Answer (B) is incorrect because it provides a premise and then a specific example that fits the premise. It is not flawed and does not match the original logical structure. Answer (C) is incorrect because it provides information about how the school schedule will change if 6 inches of snow fall. The conclusion, which is not necessarily true, assumes that there will not be a change to the school schedule if fewer than 6 inches of snow fall. In fact, we don't know what will happen when 5 inches of snow fall. This is a different flaw than in the original argument. Answers (D) and (E) present valid arguments and thus do not match the original.

Does anyone still have questions on this one?
Hi David,

Regards,
Vishal

Ganesh hatwar Rising GMAT Star
Joined
25 Jun 2012
Posted:
97 messages
Target GMAT Score:
700+
Mon Jul 30, 2012 12:20 am
DanaJ wrote:
Source: Veritas Prep

Studies show that children who watch too much television are more likely than others to become obese adults. Jacob, who is an obese adult, must have watched more television as a child than I did, since I am not obese.

Which of the following most closely parallels the logical structure above ?

(A) The hardware store on Main Street must have had a bigger advertisement in the Sunday paper than the hardware store around the corner had. The hardware store on Main Street sold twice as many items as the hardware store around the corner did last week, and a Sunday paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of items sold.

(B) Studies show that large dogs lives shorter lives, on average, than small dogs do. Rex is a large dog and therefore might be expected to live a shorter life than Mustang, who is a small dog.

(C) The county superintendent stated that all schools would be canceled for the day if snowfall last night were greater than six inches. Therefore, since the snowfall was only five inches, we must be following the usual school schedule today.

(D) According to research, people with unusual musical talent do not achieve their true potential unless they are given formal lessons. Therefore Jesse, who has achieved his full musical potential without formal lessons must not have unusual musical talent.

(E) People who like vegetables also like fruits. Elizabeth does not like fruits, so she must not like vegetables either.
B? becoz two characters or compared bases on studies

### Best Conversation Starters

1 varun289 31 topics
2 sana.noor 23 topics
3 killerdrummer 21 topics
4 Rudy414 19 topics
5 sanaa.rizwan 14 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

199 posts
2 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

134 posts
3 Jim@StratusPrep

Stratus Prep

106 posts
4 Anju@Gurome

Gurome

47 posts