Critical Reasoning

What's the best way to attack this problem and "mimic the reasoning" problems in general?



If, in a tennis tournament, a match reaches a fifth-set tiebreak, the lower-ranked player always loses the tiebreak (and, therefore, the match). If Rafael, the second-ranked player, wins a tournament by beating Roger, the top-ranked player, then the match must not have included a fifth-set tiebreak.

Which of the following arguments most closely mimics the reasoning used in the above argument?


A. If a woman with a family history of twins gets pregnant three times, she will have one set of twins. Jennifer, who falls into this category, had two sets of twins, so she must not have gotten pregnant exactly three times.

B. If a salesman sells more product than anyone else in a calendar year, then he will earn an all-expenses-paid vacation. Joe earned an all-expense-paid vacation, so he must have sold more product than anyone else for the year.

C. A newspaper can charge a 50% premium for ads if its circulation surpasses 100,000; if the circulation does not pass 100,000, therefore, the newspaper can't charge any kind of premium for ads.

D. If a student is in the top 10% of her class, she will earn a college scholarship. Anna is not in the top 10% of her class, so she will not earn a scholarship.

E. All of the players on a football team receive a cash bonus if the team wins the Super Bowl. If quarterback Tom Brady earned a cash bonus last year, he must have been a member of the winning Super Bowl team.

OA A

Original sentence structure
condition-1 -> result-1. If result-2 then condition-1 should not have happened

A) condition-1 -> result-1. If result-2 then condition-1 should not have happened
B) condition-1 -> result-1. If result-1 happened then condition-1 should have happened
C) condition-1 -> result-1. If condition-1 does not happen result-1 cant happen
D) condition-1 -> result-1. condition-1 is not met hence result-1 will not happen
E) result-1 <- condition-1. If result-1 happened then condition-1 should have happened

luckypiscian wrote:Original sentence structure
condition-1 -> result-1. If result-2 then condition-1 should not have happened

A) condition-1 -> result-1. If result-2 then condition-1 should not have happened
B) condition-1 -> result-1. If result-1 happened then condition-1 should have happened
C) condition-1 -> result-1. If condition-1 does not happen result-1 cant happen
D) condition-1 -> result-1. condition-1 is not met hence result-1 will not happen
E) result-1 <- condition-1. If result-1 happened then condition-1 should have happened

i liked the logic. But, all options except B and E seems to use the asssumptions based on the condition. If condition is satisfied some event results, if the result doesnt occur then the condition is not true, which need not be always true. Doesnt this take up a conclusion specific to reader?