Support The only songs Amanda has ever written are blues songs and punk rock songs. Support Most punk rock songs involve no more than three chords. So Conclusion if the next song Amanda writes is not a blues song, it probably will not involve more than three chords.
The argument reasons from what has universally been true in the past to a claim about what is likely in the next instance.
In the past, all songs Amanda wrote were blues or punk rock.
Most punk rock doesn’t have more than three chords.
So, if the next song Amanda writes is not a blues song, it probably won’t have more than three chords.
The argument assumes that what has historically been true for Amanda’s songs will apply to her next song (that it will either be blues or punk rock).
The reasoning in which one of the following arguments is most similar to that in the argument above?
The only pets the Gupta family has ever owned are fish and parrots. Most parrots are very noisy. So if the next pet the Gupta family owns is a parrot, it will probably be very noisy.
(A) isn’t parallel because it doesn’t assume that what’s historically been true will apply to the next pet. The claim about what will happen “if the next pet ... is a parrot” could apply regardless of the Gupta’s past history of pets. (A) could have been correct if the conclusion had started with “if the next pet ... is NOT a fish.”
Most parrots are very noisy. The Gupta family has never owned any pets other than fish and parrots. So if the Gupta family has ever owned a noisy pet, it was probably a parrot.
(B) isn’t parallel because the conclusion isn’t about the next pet. So (B) doesn’t involve reasoning from past to the next instance.
All the pets the Gupta family has ever owned have been fish and parrots. Most parrots are very noisy. So any pet the Gupta family ever owns that is not a fish will probably be very noisy.
(C) isn’t parallel because the conclusion concerns every future pet the family will ever own. But the stimulus’s conclusion only concerned the next instance. The argument in the stimulus tried to apply past trends to the next instance, but didn’t project that trend to the future for every instance.
Every pet the Gupta family has ever owned has been a fish or a parrot. Most parrots are very noisy. So if the next pet the Gupta family owns is not a parrot, it will probably not be very noisy.
(D) isn’t parallel, because it makes an unwarranted assumption that fish aren’t very noisy. The argument in the stimulus didn’t involve an assumption about blues songs; the only assumption was that the past trend would apply to the next instance.
The Gupta family has never owned any pets other than fish and parrots. Most parrots are very noisy. So the next pet the Gupta family owns will probably be very noisy if it is not a fish.
(E) applies the past trend to the next instance. In the past, the family has owned either fish or parrots. Most parrots are very noisy. So, if the next pet is not a fish, it will probably be very noisy (on the assumption that the next pet will also be limited to fish or parrot).
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic