Support Theodore will be able to file his tax return on time only in the event that he has an accountant prepare his tax return and the accountant does not ask Theodore for any additional documentation of his business expenses. ββ ββ ββββ ββββ ββ ββββββββββ βββββββ βββ βββββββ βββ ββββββββββ ββββ βββββββββββ βββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββ ββββ ββ ββββ ββ βββββ
Parallel questions have a highly regimented theory and approach – they’re among the question types where following the curriculum yields the greatest advantage over approaching them “normally,” even if your core logical intuitions are very strong. Review these lessons. They’re important.
But in short, our job is to develop an abstract model of the stimulus’ argument, preserving the structure but not the subject matter, then take a shallow dip into the answer choices looking for structural mismatches. Usually that suffices to identify the correct answer, but sometimes we’ll need a deep dive to distinguish between the (usually just two) answer choices that remain after our shallow dip.
Our argument introduces two necessary conditions to achieve a goal, says they’re mutually exclusive, then concludes the goal won’t be achieved.
Here’s an abstract summary with slightly more detail than the one above:
- Theo needs two things to achieve his goal: he needs
Thing 1 to happen, and he needsThing 2 not to happen. - But if Thing 1 happens, Thing 2 is definitely gonna happen.
- So
Theo is screwed .
Filing tax return on time = File
Accountant files the return = Acc
Additional documents needed = Docs
Premise 1: File → Acc and /Docs
Premise 2: Acc → Docs
Conclusion: /File
Our correct answer is allowed to swap out individual terms (like maybe File turns to Ice Cream), but it must keep this structure.
In
The Conclusion is marked by “Therefore”.
The answer to this particular question happens to preserve the argument’s “
The pattern of reasoning in βββββ βββ ββ βββ βββββββββ βββββββββ ββββ βββββββ βββββββββ βββ βββββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββββββ
Given the demands ββ βββββββββ ββββ βββ ββββ ββββ βββββββ ββββ βββββ ββββ βββββββ βββββ ββ βββββ β βββ ββ βββββ ββ βββ ββββ βββββββ ββββ ββ ββββ ββββββββ ββββββ ββ βββββ βββ ββββ ββββ βββββββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββββ ββ ββ ββββ ββββ ββββββ ββββββββ
Plenty of red flags here. Whatβs this βprobablyβ about? Our argument deals in certainty throughout. Where are our two necessary conditions?
Realistically, your shallow dip should end after the first sentence lacks two necessary conditions.
Tovah cannot attend βββ βββββββ ββββ ββββ ββ βββ ββ ββββ ββ βββββββββ ββ βββ ββββββ ββββ ββββββββ βββ ββββ βββ ββββ βββββββ βββββββββββ ββ ββββββ β βββββββ ββββ ββββββ βββββ βββ ββββ ββ ββββ ββ βββββββββ βββββ ββββ βββ ββ ββββ ββ ββββββ β βββββββ ββββ ββββββ
(B) starts off βTovah needs one thing to attend the concertβ which is immediately wrong. Our boy Theo needed two things. The other dissimilarities are best expressed by comparing (B)βs diagram to the one in the summary. Theyβre different! Look:
P1: Away β /Concert Next Week
P2: /Concert Next Week β /Concert This Month
P3: Away
Con: /Concert Next Month
Mark's children will βββ ββ βββββββ ββββ βββββββ ββββββ ββ ββββ ββββ ββββ βββββ βββββ ββββ ββ βββ βββββ ββββ ββββ βββ ββββ ββββ βββββ ββββββ βββ ββββ ββ βββββ ββββ ββ βββ ββ βββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββββββββββ ββββββ ββββ βββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ β βββββ ββββ βββββββ βββββββββββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββββ βββ ββ βββββββ ββββ ββββββββ
Plenty of mismatches here. On a realistic read, you should stop your shallow dip after the first sentence, in which thereβs only one necessary condition and which features the suspicious phrase βsome of the timeβ.
Just for fun, the conclusion is also a conditional claim (unless this happens, that wonβt happen) instead of a categorical claim (that wonβt happen).
If Teresa is βββ ββββββ ββ βββββ βββββ ββ βββ βββββββ βββββββ βββ ββββ ββ ββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββββ ββββββββββ βββββ βββ ββββββ ββ ββββββ ββ βββββ βββββ ββ ββββ βββββββ βββ ββββ βββββββββββ ββ ββββββ ββ ββββββββ ββββββ
Again, your shallow dip should end when the first sentence doesnβt feature two necessary conditions. This first sentence sets up an βeither this or thatβ situation, and (D) goes on to say βitβs not this, so it must be thatβ. Hereβs the diagram:
P1: First or Business
P2: /First
Con: Business
Susannah will have β ββββββββ ββββββββ ββββ ββ βββ ββββββββ ββββββ ββββββββββ ββββ βββ βββ ββββ βββ βββββ ββ βββββββ ββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ βββββββββ βββββ βββ ββββ βββββββββ βββββ ββ βββββββ ββββ ββββ βββ ββββββββ ββββ ββββββββ ββ ββββ ββββββ ββββββββββ βββββ ββββββββββ ββββββββ ββββββ ββββββββ ββ βββββββββ
Susannah needs two things to achieve her goal: she needs Thing 1 to happen, and she needs Thing 2 not to happen.
But if Thing 1 happens, Thing 2 is definitely gonna happen.
So Susannah is screwed.
Hereβs the diagram:
Relaxing vacation = Relax
Children behave well = Behave
Suspect children are planning mischief = Suspect
Premise 1: Relax β Behave and /Suspect
Premise 2: Behave β Suspect
Conclusion: /Relax