Critical Reasoning

Department Official: Vehicles weighing more than 10,000 kg are not allowed on Baker Bridge. Vehicles carrying hazardous materials are also prohibited from using Baker Bridge on weekends. Thus, a 15,000 kg tanker truck carrying nitro-classified as a hazardous material-will not be allowed to cross Baker Bridge next Saturday.


The pattern of reasoning displayed in the argument above is most closely paralleled by that in which of the following arguments?

A) Cars manufactured after 2003 must meet the new state emission standards. Since Dave's car was manufactured in 2005, it must meet the new state emission standards.
B) Applicants for a security position must be U.S. citizens with no felony convictions. Ben is not a U.S. citizen and has been convicted of a felony, so he is not eligible for the security position.
C) Students at Springfield High may not bring medication to school unless they have a prescription from a doctor or permission from the principal. Enrique has neither a prescription nor the principal's permission, so he may not bring his medication to school.
D) Maxie movie patrons attending afternoon matinees or are over age 65 are entitled to a discount. Harvey is 71 so he is entitled to the discount for Maxie's afternoon matinee movie.
E) An apartment complex prohibits all pets except fish. Lisa owns three fish and a cat, so she cannot move into the apartment complex.

This is a BTG Practice question, I didn't entirely agree with the OA, wanted to get the forum's thoughts on the answer, and I'll post the OA a little later on.

Thanks

Is OA D ?

Yeah, the OA is D, I'm just a bit confused as to why it isn't B.

I went with 'C'. Not sure how 'D' could be the answer. Could an expert explain please?

C and D both look good. I marked 'C'. But the correct answer is 'D'

The question gives two independent conditions

If the condition 1 is true, the truck is not allowed.
If the condition 2 is true, the truck is not allowed.

When only one is true the truck won't be allowed. But the truck satisfies the both.

in option C there are two independent conditions.

Condition 1 : if he does not have a prescription from a doctor,he may not bring his medication to school.
Condition 2 : if he does not have permission from the principal,he may not bring his medication to school.

Here if either is true the student will be allowed. But he satisfies none.

But in option D, Harley satisfies both the conditions though only one is required.

Quite tricky !!

garry123 wrote:C and D both look good. I marked 'C'. But the correct answer is 'D'

The question gives two independent conditions

If the condition 1 is true, the truck is not allowed.
If the condition 2 is true, the truck is not allowed.

When only one is true the truck won't be allowed. But the truck satisfies the both.

in option C there are two independent conditions.

Condition 1 : if he does not have a prescription from a doctor,he may not bring his medication to school.
Condition 2 : if he does not have permission from the principal,he may not bring his medication to school.

Here if either is true the student will be allowed. But he satisfies none.

But in option D, Harley satisfies both the conditions though only one is required.

Quite tricky !!

As per option D, the necessary condition is that the person should be a maxie movie patron but Harvie is not and he is only over 65.

D) Maxie movie patrons attending afternoon matinees or are over age 65 are entitled to a discount. Harvey is 71 so he is entitled to the discount for Maxie's afternoon matinee movie.

There are two conditions for discount :

1. Attend after noon matinees
2. Age >65

Both are satisfied by Harvey.

garry123 wrote:D) Maxie movie patrons attending afternoon matinees or are over age 65 are entitled to a discount. Harvey is 71 so he is entitled to the discount for Maxie's afternoon matinee movie.

There are two conditions for discount :

1. Attend after noon matinees
2. Age >65

Both are satisfied by Harvey.

But he satisfies only one condition(i.e. the 2nd one).

paddle_sweep wrote:

garry123 wrote:D) Maxie movie patrons attending afternoon matinees or are over age 65 are entitled to a discount. Harvey is 71 so he is entitled to the discount for Maxie's afternoon matinee movie.

There are two conditions for discount :

1. Attend after noon matinees
2. Age >65

Both are satisfied by Harvey.

But he satisfies only one condition(i.e. the 2nd one).

he is entitled to the discount for Maxie's afternoon matinee movie.


read this again.... he will get discount if he is above 65 or he attends afternoon movie. He is already 71 and he is opting discount for afternoon

Even I marked 'B' and I totally feel that 'B' should be the solution.Can some expert jump in help out

Parallel reasoning questions can sometimes be tough to decipher. I'm not an expert but here are my thoughts on this one.

To find the parallel structure we need to examine the premises and conclusions separately. Then we need to find the answer that best mirrors these components. Below are some notes on the premises and conclusion of the Baker Bridge argument. We should look for as many of these elements in the answer choices.

Premise 1: "Vehicles weighing more than 10,000 kg are not allowed on Baker Bridge." This premise presents a condition where a vehicle is not allowed on Baker Bridge. This condition is quantitative and in the greater than / less than form (ie more than 10,000 kg is not allowed).

Premise 2: "Vehicles carrying hazardous materials are also prohibited from using Baker Bridge on weekends." This premise presents another condition where a vehicle is prohibited from using Baker Bridge. This condition is qualitative and it is restricted by time (weekends).

Conclusion: "A 15,000 kg tanker truck carrying nitro-classified as a hazardous material-will not be allowed to cross Baker Bridge next Saturday." The conclusion is proven by each premise independently. In other words, either premise would be sufficient to prove the conclusion "(the truck) will not be allowed to cross Baker Bridge next Saturday".

Now let's look at the answer choices. I have separated the premises and conclusions for easier reference:

A)
P1: Cars manufactured after 2003 must meet the new state emission standards.
P2: Dave's car was manufactured in 2005
C1: Dave's car must meet the new state emission standards.

This answer presents two premises that work together. P1 or P2 alone is not sufficient to come to the conclusion that Dave's car "must meet the new state emission standards". This is a different structure than in the Baker Bridge argument so this answer is incorrect.

B)
P1: Applicants for a security position must be U.S. citizens.
P2: Applicants for a security position must have no felony convictions.
P3: Ben is not a U.S. citizen and has been convicted of a felony.
C1: Ben is not eligible for the security position.

P1 and P2 are qualitative conditions describing eligibility for a security position. As in Baker Bridge, each condition independently proves the conclusion. However, Baker Bridge has one quantitative condition and one qualitative condition. The structure of this answer is a little different; let's see if there is a better choice.

C)
P1: Students at Springfield High may not bring medication to school unless they have a prescription from a doctor.
P2: Students at Springfield High may not bring medication to school unless they have permission from the principal.
P3: Enrique has neither a prescription nor the principal's permission.
C1: He may not bring his medication to school

As you can see this is very similar in structure to B). Again, P1 and P2 are qualitative conditions. However, in this answer each condition does not independently prove the conclusion. For example, even if Enrique doesn't have a prescription he may be able to bring medication if he has the principal's permission. We need both premises to prove the conclusion. We are also still missing a quantitative condition. This answer is worse than (B) so it can be ruled out.

D)
P1: Maxie movie patrons attending afternoon matinees are entitled to a discount.
P2: Maxie movie patrons over age 65 are entitled to a discount.
P3: Harvey is 71 and Harvey is going to the afternoon matinee movie.
C1: Harvey is entitled to the discount for Maxie's afternoon matinee movie.

Finally, we have one qualitative condition (P1) and one quantitative condition (P2). Additionally, P1 is restricted by time and P2 is in the greater than / less than form. (Part of P3 is extrapolated from the conclusion. Because Harvey is over 65 he is entitled to a discount on any movie. The conclusion says that he is getting a discount to the afternoon matinee, so we can infer that this is the movie that he is going to see). Because Harvey is over 65 and he is going to the afternoon matinee, P1 and P2 are independently sufficient to prove the conclusion that "Harvey is entitled to the discount". So far this is the best choice. The premises are in the same structure and they both independently prove the conclusion.

E)
P1: An apartment complex prohibits all pets except fish.
P2: Lisa owns three fish and a cat.
C1: Lisa cannot move into the apartment complex.

This answer choice is very similar to (A). We have two premises working together. Neither premise alone is sufficient to prove the conclusion. As with (A), this is not the structure we are looking for.

(A), (C), and (E) have already been ruled out. Notice the similarities between (A) and (E). This should raise a red flag. The fact that they are so similar should make you very skeptical of choosing either one.

It's down to (B) and (D). I would go with (D). It just has more in common with Baker Bridge argument. Both (B) and (D) have premises that independently prove the conclusion. However, (D) also has one quantitative condition as a premise, and the premises are restricted in the same way as the Baker Bridge premises.