Self-study
To date, Support most of the proposals that have been endorsed by the Citizens League have been passed by the city council. █████ ███ ██████ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ █████
Objective: Match the Method of Reasoning
The author concludes that future proposals endorsed by the Citizens League will likely be passed at council. This is because in the past, most proposals endorsed by the Citizens League have been passed at council. To find a match for this method of reasoning, the first step is to abstract the argument. That will make it easier to identify which answer choice follows the same pattern.
In this case, the author is relying on an analogy between past and future events, saying that because a certain type of event has been likely to have a certain result in the past, that event will probably yield the same result in the future. So that's the pattern we're looking for: a statement that event A has usually led to result B in the past, supporting a conclusion that a future event will probably follow the same trend.
When looking at the answer choices, here are are two things to keep in mind. The first is that the order of the elements is less important; we want to focus on the actual logical relationship of those elements, whatever their order. The second is that although some answers will likely be easy to eliminate quickly, the choice between the final options often comes down to small details. That's why it's important to be very clear on the structure of the stimulus, so we can check that every part matches.
20.
The pattern of reasoning in █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Most of the ██████ ██████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ██████████ ████ ██ █████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████████
At a glance, (A) might look like a potential match, meaning we should closely examine the details to confirm.
Like the stimulus, (A)'s premise is that a certain event (awarding a grant) has usually had a certain result (awarding it to an academic biologist). But the conclusion is subtly different from that of the stimulus: (A) switches from the general event (awarding a grant) to a more specific event (awarding the grant to an academic).
In order to parallel the stimulus, (A) would need a conclusion more like this: "most of the grants next year will probably go to academic biologists." But because it doesn't match all the details, (A) is incorrect.
b
Most of the ██████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██████████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ ████████ █████████ ██████████
(B) uses the characteristics of individual trees to draw a (flawed) conclusion about the categories to which those trees belong. This doesn't match the stimulus, which uses an analogy to past trends to predict something about the future.
c
Most of the ███████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ███ █████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ █████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ █████ ███████ ███ ██ ███████████ ██ █████ ████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ██ ███████
(C) tells us that an event (editor working at the paper) has usually had a certain outcome (not sympathetic), but the conclusion doesn't predict the outcome of a similar event. Instead, it guesses that an event yielding a different outcome (hiring someone sympathetic) would likely not be the same event (employee wouldn't be an editor). This doesn't match the pattern of the stimulus.
d
Most of the ███████ ████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ███████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ █████
(D) makes a claim about how certain people are likely to change their approach in the future; in other words, it predicts a change in reaction to past trends. This doesn't match the pattern in the stimulus, where the author makes a prediction that a past trend will continue.
e
Most of the █████ █████████ ████ ████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████████ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ██ █ ████████ █████
At a first look, (E) seems promising, meaning we should closely examine the details to double-check.
Like the stimulus, (E)'s premise is that a certain event (finding a stone artifact) has usually had a certain result (finding a domestic tool). And (E) concludes that if a similar event occurs in the future, it will likely have the same result. This matches the stimulus' method of analogy between past and future events.
One thing that makes (E) tricky is the use of if whereas the stimulus uses any. But both mean the same thing in this context.