Self-study
Support People who have habitually slept less than six hours a night and then begin sleeping eight or more hours a night typically begin to feel much less anxious. ██████████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ █████ █ █████ ███ ████████ █████ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ██ █████ █████ █████ █ ██████
Argument Summary
The premise tells us about people who actually made a specific change (habitually slept under six hours, then switched to eight or more) and what typically happens to them (anxiety drops). The conclusion then generalizes: most people in the starting group (current under-six-hour sleepers) can probably get that same anxiety drop by making the same switch.
Pay attention to the strength of the language. The premise uses typically; the conclusion uses most + probably. Both are moderate, not absolute. The argument also assumes that the people who happened to make the change are representative of the wider group who haven't.
Anticipation
For Parallel Reasoning, match the structure and the strength of the claims, not the topic. We're looking for an argument with the same shape: among those who actually made some change, the effect typically appears, so most people in the starting group can probably produce that effect by making the change. Both halves should match, including the moderate strength carried by "typically" in the premise and "most/probably" in the conclusion.
19.
The reasoning in which one ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
When a small ███████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ █████████ █████████ █████████ █████████ ████ █████ ████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████ █████ █████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███
This matches the stimulus on every move. Among small companies that actually started advertising on the Internet, the effect generally appears (financial situation improves). And so most companies in the starting group (those that have never advertised) can probably produce that effect by making the change. Same shape, same moderate strength ("generally," "most," "probably"), and even the same implicit assumption that the companies that happened to make the change are representative of the ones that haven't.
b
Certain small companies ████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ██ ████ █████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████████
(B) downgrades the premise from a general pattern to a handful of examples. The stimulus premise says the effect happens to switchers as a general tendency ("typically"). (B) only tells us that "certain small companies" experienced the effect, which is a much weaker premise. You can't get from "some specific companies improved" to "most small companies can probably improve" without a bigger leap than the stimulus makes. (B)'s conclusion is also broader in scope, covering "most small companies" generally rather than only those that have never advertised.
c
It must be ████ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ███ █████████ ██████████ █████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ █████ █████████ ██████████ ████ █████ ████ █████ █████ ██ ██ ███
(C) has two problems. First, the conclusion's strength is wrong. The stimulus concludes that "most" people can "probably" cause the effect (moderate). (C) concludes that "any small company that increases its Internet advertising will improve its financial situation" (absolute, no exceptions). The stimulus's reasoning supports a probabilistic claim, not a universal one.
Second, the conclusion's population doesn't match the premise. The premise concerns small companies that "first" begin to advertise (going from no advertising to some). The conclusion is about companies that "increase" their Internet advertising, a broader category that includes companies already advertising who decide to do more. The premise tells us nothing about the effect of bumping up existing advertising. The stimulus stayed parallel on this point: the premise and conclusion both concerned the same change, from under six hours of sleep to eight or more.
d
Usually, the financial █████████ ██ █ █████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████ █ ███████ █████ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███
(D) swaps in the wrong premise structure. Its premise establishes a necessary condition ("improve only if that company starts to advertise"), meaning advertising is required for improvement. The stimulus's premise wasn't a necessary condition. It was a typical effect: switchers usually experience the effect. Necessary-condition reasoning and typical-effect reasoning are different logical structures, so even though (D)'s conclusion sounds similar to the stimulus's, the path it takes to get there isn't parallel.
e
A small company's █████████ █████████ ███████ ████████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████ ████████ ██████ ███████████ ███████
The conclusion of (E) asserts that businesses could become “financially strong,” which is different from the claim that a business could improve its financial position. This argument commits a relative/absolute flaw, which isn’t something the argument in the stimulus committed.