Self-study
Support Last year the county park system failed to generate enough revenue to cover its costs. ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ █████████████ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ████████████ ████ ███ ██ ██████ ███████ ███████ █████
Analysis: Parallel Pattern of Reasoning
The stimulus tells us that the county park was unprofitable last year. We're given a principle: any business should be closed if it is unprofitable. As you map out this principle, you might be tempted to kick "being a business" up into the domain, but if you read through to the end of the stimulus, you'll see that it makes more sense to keep "being a business" as part of the sufficient condition (which is what it still is even when kicked up to the domain!). So if an institution is a business AND it is unprofitable, it should be closed:
business AND /profitable → closed
We're then told, though, that county parks are not businesses. So they don't meet both parts of the sufficient condition in the rule above. Therefore, the argument concludes that county parks being unprofitable is not a good enough reason on its own to justify closing them.
We're probably looking for an answer choice with a similar structure, where we're given a rule with two parts to the sufficient condition:
A AND B → C
We might then be told that some entity X meets condition B, but not condition A. The conclusion will be that X meeting condition B alone is not sufficient to conclude C about X.
20.
The pattern of reasoning in ███ ████████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████
a
A prime-time television ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███████ █ █████ █████████ ███ ███ █████ ████████ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ █████
Correct. The "principle" given in (A) gives us two conditions that must both be met to reach the conclusion that a TV series should be canceled. If it is a prime-time series AND it fails to attract a large audience, it should be canceled:
prime-time AND /large audience → canceled
We're then told that the documentary series attracts a small audience, but it does not air during prime time. So the series meets one of the conditions above, but not the other one. Therefore, (A) concludes that the fact that the series attracts a small audience is not sufficient reason to cancel it. This matches the structure of the stimulus.
b
Although companies that ███████████ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ████ █████████ ███████████ ██████████ ███ █████ ███████ ██████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ █████████ █████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ██ ████████ ██ ████████████
Incorrect. Remember that we're looking for a principle that gives us several "parts" to the sufficient condition, then tells us that a particular person or entity meets one part of the condition but not another one. (B) gives us a principle that could work. In theory, we could turn "manufacturing automobiles" and "marketing automobiles" and "being in the United States" each into an independent part of the sufficient condition:
manufacture AND market AND in U.S. → meet standards
But the rest of the argument in (B) doesn't match the pattern we're looking for. (B) doesn't say that OKESA meets one of these conditions, but fails to meet another one. It tells us something else entirely about OKESA — that it manufactures bicycles in addition to automobiles. This doesn't parallel the pattern of the stimulus.
c
Although the province ███ ███ ████████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ █████ ████ ██ ██████ █ ███ ███████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██ █ ████ ██ █████████
(C) doesn't match anything about the structure of the stimulus. We aren't given a principle with a "multi-part" sufficient condition, nor are we told that something meets one part of the sufficient condition, but fails to meet another part.
d
Even though cockatiels ███ ████ ████████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ █████ ███ █████████████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ████████
Like (C), (D) just doesn't match anything about the structure of the stimulus. We aren't given a principle with a "multi-part" sufficient condition, and we're not told that something only meets one part of the sufficient condition and not another part.
e
Since minors are ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████ ████ █████ ██ ███████
Incorrect. This might seem similar to the stimulus in that it explains why one group (minors) should be exempt from something that applies to another group (punishments applying to adults). But there's no principle stated explicitly here, let alone a principle that provides a "multi-part" sufficient condition where minors are then shown to fail to meet the entire sufficient condition. The argument just runs:
1. Minors are not subject to the same criminal laws as adults
2. Minors should not be subject to the same sorts of punishments as adults.
If anything, this argument assumes a principle like "if a group is not subject to the same laws as another group, it should not be subject to the same sorts of punishments." But since there's no stated principle, we can't say (E) parallels the structure of the stimulus.