Critical Reasoning

i thought that option B seems to be more parallel still not able to understand why option A is correct

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!

i found this one easy. straight A

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,

Option A says that Sunday paper advertisement has been shown to increase the number of items sold. It does not say anything about the size of advertisement. It talks only about the presence or absence of the advertisement. Had the conclusion been, the hardware store on Main Street must have given an advertisement in the Sunday paper then probably this could have been correct but the option doesnot look correct in its present form

Please help me understand the logic

Regards,
Vishal

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

I go with C.

I was between A and B and chose B!

Structure of the argument: draw a relation between 2 items based on the previous studies
Hence, the correct answer needs to provide 2 parts: result from previous studies and conclusion for a specific case. In other words, from General -> Specific

Choose B

ndqv wrote:Structure of the argument: draw a relation between 2 items based on the previous studies
Hence, the correct answer needs to provide 2 parts: result from previous studies and conclusion for a specific case. In other words, from General -> Specific

Choose B

Question Stem: Reason - Result - Comparison

{A} - REASON "had a bigger advertisement " - RESULT "sold twice as many items" - COMPARISON "hardware store around the corner did last week"

{B} - RESULT "dogs lives shorter lives" - COMPARISON"life than Mustang" ... REASON is Missing
Can't be correct Answer

Answer [spoiler]{A}[/spoiler]

As indicated above the correct answer is A.

Here is what I said above:

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.

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?

In parallel reasoning questions should we match the number of premises also as given in the original argument? Also what is the "probability" of 'Method of Reasoning' and 'Parallel reasoning' questions to appear in the GMAT exam itself?? Thanx in advance

IMO A

Parallel reasoning questions CAN They combine two facts to make a conclusion. Even though the topic is different, they are similar because the LOGIC behind the arguments is similar. The WAY IN WHICH THE ARGUMENT IS MADE is the most important thing for "Similar Reasoning" questions. I recommend you count the pieces of evidence, and look for the relationship between that evidence and the conclusion. The correct conclusion will mimic the logic of the argument in the paragraph.

CRITICAL REASONING QUESTION:
Source: Veritas Prep

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

Mimic the reasoning: Children that watch too much television, become obese.
Children that watch less television, do not become 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.

Identify entities the hardware store on Main Street. there's always another one. The hardware store around the corner.
The Hardware store on Main street sold more items.
The Hardware store around the corner sold less num items.
Reason: Sunday paper ad.
The erroneous conclusion is that a bigger Sunday ad created more sales.
ignores possible alternative causes for the number of items sold (location, selection, etc.).

(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.
Rex -= large dog
Mustang -= small dog
Since "studies show that" and we are not able to question study,
Being a large dog gives you longer life than a small dog.
Similar reasoning. Taking out a sunday ad produces more sales.
But not necessarily. There may be other ways to create more sales.

(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.

if snowfall = > 6 inch then schools canceled.
snowfall - 5 inch so schools not canceled.
It may be 5 inch but still snowfall could cancel the schools.

(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.

Error: Questioning the origin. that "People with unusual musical talent do require formal lessons."
If there is unusual musical talent, it can come out of any source, not just formal lessons.
This is a valid reasoning, but it doesnt fit the logic type infered from this question.

(E) People who like vegetables also like fruits. Elizabeth does not like fruits, so she must not like vegetables either.
Logical Fallacy. All people who like vegetables are also supposed to like fruits.
This is logical fallacy, but the question is about something different.
Not all people who watch lot of childhood TV end up being obese adults.

answer is A.