Self-paced
Support No projects that involve historical restorations were granted building permits this month. █████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ █████████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████
Argument Summary: Parallel Method of Reasoning
The argument starts with a conditional rule. No projects involving historical restorations were granted building permits this month:
historical restorations → /permit this month
We're told that some of Stein and Sapin's current projects are historical restorations:
Stein and Sapin ←s→ historical restorations
So the argument concludes that at least some of Stein and Sapin's projects were not granted building permits this month:
Stein and Sapin ←s→ historical restorations → /permit this month
Stein and Sapin ←s→ /permit this month
We're likely looking for an answer choice that follows a similar pattern, where we're given a general conditional rule, told that some members of a set fulfill the sufficient condition of the rule, and conclude that the necessary condition must also be true of at least some members of that set.
13.
The pattern of reasoning in ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
None of the ███████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████████
(A) starts with a conditional statement. None of the doctors working at City Hospital were trained abroad:
City Hospital → /trained abroad
Then we're told that some hospitals require doctors trained abroad to pass an extra qualifying exam:
hospitals ←s→ require qualifying exam
Though this is a "some" statement, there's no way to link it up to the conditional statement to form the kind of argument we see in the stimulus.
b
None of the ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███████ ████ ████ ████████████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ████████ ███████ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ██ ████ █████
(B) starts with a conditional statement. None of the news reports from the economic summit meeting have been encouraging:
reports from meeting → /encouraging
You might be able to tell even before diagramming it that this next statement isn't what we're looking for. Some other recent economic reports have showed positive trends:
reports not from meeting ←s→ positive
Like in (A), there's no way to link these premises up to get to the sort of conclusion we're looking for.
c
None of the ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ████ █████████ █████ ██████████ █████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ █████████ █████ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ████ █████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ████ █████
We start with a conditional statement. None of the new members of the orchestra have completed their paperwork:
new members → /completed paperwork
We're then told that only those people who have completed their paperwork can be paid this week:
paid this week → completed paperwork
The conclusion is that at least some new members of the orchestra "are likely to be paid late":
new member ←s→ likely to be paid late
Notice that we can get close to this conclusion by combining the first rule with the contrapositive of the second one:
new members → /completed paperwork → /paid this week
But this tells us that all new members of the orchestra will not be paid this week, which is stronger than saying that "at least some" of them "are likely to be paid late." So the conclusion of (C) is an understatement that is technically true, but not the sort of conclusion we're looking for. Notice that even if (C) came to the stronger conclusion, it would still not have a "some" statement among its premises, as the stimulus does.
d
Several films directed ██ ██████ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ ████████████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ████████████ ████████
Correct. (D)'s premises contain both a "some" statement and a conditional statement. Several films directed by Hannah Barker were released this season, but none of the films released this season were enthusiastically reviewed:
Hannah Barker ←s→ released this season
released this season → /enthusiastically reviewed
The conclusion is that at least some of Hannah Barker's films have not received enthusiastic reviews:
Hannah Barker ←s→ released this season → /enthusiastically reviewed
Hannah Barker ←s→ /enthusiastically reviewed
This matches the structure of the argument in the stimulus.
e
Some of the ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ████ █ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ █ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ██████
Incorrect. The minute you see that (E)'s premises are both "some" statements, you know that (E) is not the answer choice we're looking for.