Parallel Reasoning

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Jun 08, 2009 10:02 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:3 members

Parallel Reasoning

by turbo jet » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:38 pm
Some visitors to the park engage in practices that seriously harm the animals. Surely, no one who knew that these practices seriously harm the animals would engage in them. So it must be concluded that some of
the visitors do not know that these practices seriously
harm the animals.
The pattern of reasoning exhibited by which one of the
following arguments is most similar to that exhibited
by the argument above?

(A) Some of the people who worked on the failed project will be fired. Everyone in this department played an important part in that
project. Therefore some people in this department will be fired.

(B) Some of the people who signed the petition were among the mayor’s supporters. Yet the mayor denounced everyone who signed the
petition. Hence the mayor denounced some of her own supporters.

(C) Some of the people polled live outside the city limits. However, no one who can vote in city elections lives outside the city. Therefore some
of the people polled cannot vote in the upcoming city election.

(D) All of the five original planners are responsible for this problem. Yet none of the original planners will admit responsibility for the
problem. Thus some of the people responsible for the problem will not admit responsibility.

(E) Some members of the Liberal Party are in favor of the proposed ordinance. But all members of the city council are opposed to the proposed ordinance. Hence some members of the city
council are not Liberals. 26. Rapid population growth can be disastrous for a small city. Ideally there should be at least one municipal employee for every hundred residents; when too many people move in at once, city services responsible for utilities and permits are quickly overloaded. Most city budgets do not allow for the immediate hiring of new
staff.

[spoiler]OA:C[/spoiler]
Last edited by turbo jet on Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Life is Tom; I am Jerry ;)
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:53 pm
would go for C.
C seems to be the only one which follows a similar pattern of reasoning. the conclusion is made based on a presumption. the rest of the choices base the conclusion on evidences which are known to be true. no uncertainty/presumption involved.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 12:55 pm
Thanked: 5 times
Followed by:1 members

by vinaynp » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:00 pm
IMO B) by POE.

D) and E) are not possible. The conclusion is a contradiction to the second sentence.

C) The 1st and second sentence talk about two different things.

A) The conclusion is re-iterating the 1st sentence. There is no derivation.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 2:49 am
Thanked: 9 times

by SanjeevK » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:38 am
IMO C

Some visitors --- harm animals
No one who knew ----- harm animals
=> some visitors don't know ---

Only C parallels this reasoning
some people --- live outside city limits
No one who can vote ----- lives outside city
=> some people cannot vote

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 200
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:27 am

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 8:04 pm
I believe the answer should be B