Critical Reasoning

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.


i some how feel that A sud have been modeled a little better for there the causation is not as explicit as it is in the premise of the question

the premise of the question gives us:

children who watch too much television---------> obesity
then the erroneous conclusion is drawn that because jacob is more obese then he must have wathed more television

i feel that A sud have shown such kind of causation :

bigger advertisement ---------> higher sales
and because The hardware store on Main Street sold twice as many items as the hardware store around the corner so hardware store on Main Street must have had bigger advertisement than hardware store around the corner

i feel that while that erroneous conclusion is explicitly stated in A ,the causation (bigger advertisement ---------> higher sales) that i have mentioned is not stated

instructors can plz shed some light on this !!

IMO B..whats the OA??

This is a Parallel Reasoning question. Contains reasoning most similar in structure to the reasoning in the stimulus.
The answer option should follow the topic of stimulus & Order of premises, conc. etc..

This is what i think.

Experts pls help.

neha24 wrote: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.

Pieces of the passage:
General principle: Watching too much TV as a child leads to being obese as an adult.
Premise: Jacob is obese, while I am not.
Conclusion: Jacob must have watched more TV as a child than I did.

The correct answer must MATCH all of these pieces.
Note that the pieces will typically be presented in a DIFFERENT ORDER.

Answer choice 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.
General principle: A Sunday paper advertisement leads to an increase in the number of items sold.
Premise: The hardware store on Main Street sold twice as many items as the hardware store around the corner.
Conclusion: The hardware store on Main Street must have had a bigger advertisement in the Sunday paper than the hardware store around the corner.
All of the pieces here match back to the passage.

The correct answer is A.

Mitch,

I agree that the question says " most closely" resemble, but i find it hard to eliminate B based on logical structure. Can you please throw some light as to why B should be eliminated?

General principle: Large dogs live shorter lives than small dogs do
Premise: Rex is a large dog and Mustang is a short one
Conclusion: Rex is expected to live a shorter life than Mustang

How is it different from

General principle: Watching too much TV as a child leads to being obese as an adult.
Premise: Jacob is obese, while I am not.
Conclusion: Jacob must have watched more TV as a child than I did.

insanejuxtapose wrote:Mitch,

I agree that the question says " most closely" resemble, but i find it hard to eliminate B based on logical structure. Can you please throw some light as to why B should be eliminated?

The premise in the passage expresses a LIKELIHOOD:
Children who watch too much television are MORE LIKELY to become obese adults.
The premise in B is about an AVERAGE:
Large dogs lives shorter lives, ON AVERAGE.
AVERAGE ≠ LIKELIHOOD.
In B, it is possible that a FEW large dogs live extremely short lives -- bringing down the average life-expectancy -- while a MAJORITY OF LARGE DOGS live long lives, with the result that a large dog is UNLIKELY to live a short life.

The conclusion in the passage is DEFINITIVE:
Jacob, who is an obese adult, MUST have watched more television as a child than I did.
The conclusion in B is TENTATIVE:
Rex is a large dog and therefore MIGHT be expected to live a shorter life.
TENTATIVE ≠ DEFINITIVE.

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.

as per me , B is wrong because the conclusion of B is a logical conclusion based on its premise where as the reasoning as derived in question premise is illogical conclusion

neha24 wrote:

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.

as per me , B is wrong because the conclusion of B is a logical conclusion based on its premise where as the reasoning as derived in question premise is illogical conclusion

Correct!

Diagram of the passage:
Premise:
Too much TV ---> Obesity.
Conclusion:
Jacob's Obesity ---> Jacob watched too much TV.
The conclusion here REVERSES the causal relationship.

Diagram of B:
Premise:
Largeness ---> Short Life.
Conclusion:
Rex's largeness ---> Rex might have a short life.
This answer choice DOES NOT REVERSE the causal relationship.

thanks Mitch for corroborating my statement .i cudn't have explained better than this.but plz tell me something :
the diagram for the premise in the question is as follows:Diagram of the passage:
Premise:
Too much TV ---> Obesity.
Conclusion:
Jacob's Obesity ---> Jacob watched too much TV.
The conclusion here REVERSES the causal relationship

now my question is ,though u have explained it ,why option A diagram does not have the following premise : too large advertisement -----> greater sales
. i am failing to understand this premise in A and i guess A sud have explicitly stated this relation


oki i will elaborate my question .
A says : 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.

from this premise in A how can we derive the relation that bigger advertisement ------> leads to greater sales .the only thing A says (i have bolded ) that sundey paper advertisement has shown to increase the number of items sold !! how from this statement can we infer the required premise (bigger advertisement ------> leads to greater sales )

neha24 wrote: oki i will elaborate my question .
A says : 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.

from this premise in A how can we derive the relation that bigger advertisement ------> leads to greater sales .the only thing A says (i have bolded ) that sundey paper advertisement has shown to increase the number of items sold !! how from this statement can we infer the required premise (bigger advertisement ------> leads to greater sales )

The question stem asks for the answer choice that MOST CLOSELY parallels the logical structure of the passage.
Don't make inferences; just MAP OUT the logic of the passage and that of each answer choice and look for the BEST MATCH.

Diagram of the passage, elaborated:
Too much TV ---> Weight gain.
Jacob weighs more than I do.
Conclusion:
Jacob greater amount of weight ---> Jacob watched more TV than I did.

Diagram of A:
Sunday advertisement ---> Sales increase.
The Main Street store sold twice as many items as the store around the corner.
Conclusion:
The Main Street store's higher sales ---> the Main Street store had a bigger Sunday advertisement.

Of the 5 answer choices, none matches the logical structure of the passage better than answer choice A.

Can we say like this?

In premises: Action has been done-> He is obese so we can assume he is couch potato.
In A: Hardware sold twice as sunday's advertisement.
In B: We are expecting that dog would live shorter which is not a fact.

(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.

Please correct if I am wrong.