Support Whenever Joe's car is vacuumed, the employees of K & L Auto vacuum it; they are the only people who ever vacuum Joe's car. ██ ███ █████████ ██ █ █ █ ████ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██ █ █ █ ████ ██ ██ ██████ █████ ███ ███ ████████ █████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██ █ █ █ ████ ██ ██ ██████
The author concludes that Joe took his car to K & L Auto to be fixed. This conclusion is reached via a conditional chain: if Joe's car is vacuumed, then K & L employees must have vacuumed the car. If K & L employees vacuumed the car, the Joe took his car to K & L be fixed. And the chain is triggered because Joe’s car was recently vacuumed.
To find a match for this argument, the first step is to abstract the reasoning, which is reasonably straightforward for this conditional chain. Combining the two conditional premises, the abstracted argument looks like this:
vacuum → KL employees → KL fix
Joevacuum
______
JoeKL fix
So we're looking for an answer with three elements: two conditional premises forming a conditional chain; a factual premise affirming the first sufficient condition; and a conclusion that the final necessary condition must be true.
Just keep in mind that the logical structure is more important than the form, so the elements might be in a different order, phrased as contrapositives, or otherwise tricky to spot. This makes it important to closely examine attractive answers to ensure that everything truly matches.
The pattern of reasoning exhibited ██ ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
Emily's water glass ██ ███ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ █████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████ ████████
(A) looks like a possible match, so we should take a closer look to confirm that all the details match. First, we can abstract the argument in (A) to make it easier to compare with the stimulus. Here's what that looks like:
glass wet → drank water → medication
Emilyglass wet
______
Emilymedication
These elements are in a different order, but they still reflect the correct logical relationship from the stimulus: a causal chain where the first sufficient condition is affirmed, leading to a conclusion affirming the final necessary condition.
Lisa went to ███ ████ █████ █████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████████
(B) reaches its conclusion by presenting two options, and then eliminating one of them. The stimulus, however, triggers a conditional chain—a different patten of argument.
There are no █████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██████ █████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ████ ███████ ██████ ████ ██████
(C) establishes a certain expectation, then tells us that an unexpected outcome has occurred and leaps to a conclusion that introduces a new variable. The stimulus simply triggers a conditional chain, which doesn't match the reasoning in (C).
Linda is grumpy ████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ██ ███████
(D) might look attractive, so the next step is to break down the argument so we can compare it to the stimulus. The abstracted version looks like this:
grumpy → no coffee → ran out
______
ran out → grumpy
In the abstract, it might be easier to see that (D) isn't a match—for two reasons. First, (D) has no factual premise triggering the conditional chain, which the right answer needs. Second, (D) has a flawed conditional conclusion which tries to collapse the chain, but mixes up a necessary and sufficient condition. Either of these would be enough to make (D) incorrect.
Jeff had to ██████ ██████ █ ██████████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████ ████ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ ████ ████████
(E) presents two options, and then implicitly eliminates one option to confirm the other. In contrast, the stimulus triggers a conditional chain, meaning (E) doesn't match.