Self-study
Support Most pet owners who take allergy medication are allergic to pets. ██████████ █████ █████ ████ █ ███ ████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████
The Practical Template
Here’s the rule you can use to distinguish between right and wrong answers in this question: the conclusion needs to apply the premise's rule backward. Here’s a breakdown in English:
Premise: Most med-takers are allergic.
-----
Conclusion: If Chuck gets allergic, he’ll likely take meds.
And here’s a breakdown in Lawgic:
Premise: Meds –most→ Allergic
-----
Conclusion: ChuckAllergic –likely→ ChuckMeds
If you’re working with a much more complex model, that’s completely understandable. This question involves a ton of apparent complexities that turn out to be irrelevant. Where’s the concept of pet ownership? Aren’t there two premises? What’s the deal with the jump from most to likely?
These are all great questions with nuanced answers I’m not gonna provide here. Why? Because of this fundamental principle of multiple choice strategy:
Core Multiple Choice Principle: if you have a complaint about one answer choice that applies equally well to the other answers you’re considering, that complaint cancels out. You can’t use it as a reason to pick one over the other, so you should stop worrying about it.
Except for the concepts preserved in the template above, all the complex structural elements and potential mismatches you might have noticed appear in every single answer choice. To give just one example:
As it happens, you can validly translate most claims to likely claims. But that fact doesn’t matter because all the answer choices jump from most to likely.
16.
Which one of the following █████████ ████████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Most cars taken ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ ████ ██████████ ████████████
The conclusion applies the premise to Anastasia’s car in the right direction:
Premise: Taken to AAE –most→ Electrical Problems
Conclusion: CarTaken to AAE –likely→ CarElectrical Problems
b
Most cars taken ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████
This matches the stimulus’ structure. The conclusion applies the premise’s rule backward:
Premise: Taken to AAE –most→ Electrical Problems
Conclusion: CarElectrical Problems –likely→ CarTaken to AAE
c
Most cars that ███ █████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████
(C)’s conclusion attempts to apply the contrapositive of its premise’s rule. It’s not just backward, it’s yes/no flipped and backward. That’s also flawed reasoning (you can’t take the contrapositive of “most” claims), but it’s a different kind of flawed reasoning. Here’s the structure:
Premise: Taken to AAE –most→ /Electrical Problems
Conclusion: CarElectrical Problems –likely→ Car/Taken to AAE
Incidentally, (C) is right if you overlook both “not”s, so that’s another lens on why you might have picked it. Those negations aren’t red flags, though. They’re actually fine as long as the conclusion preserves them as it applies the rule backward (which it doesn’t).
d
Most cars taken ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████
(D)’s conclusion attempts to apply the contrapositive of its premise’s rule. It’s not just backward, it’s yes/no flipped and backward. That’s also flawed reasoning (you can’t take the contrapositive of “most” claims), but it’s a different kind of flawed reasoning. Here’s the structure:
Premise: Taken to AAE –most→ Electrical Problems
Conclusion: Car/Electrical Problems –likely→ Car/Taken to AAE
(It’s worth noting here that “unlikely” translates to “likely not.”)
Incidentally, (D) is right if you overlook both “not”s, so that’s another lens on why you might have picked it. Those negations aren’t red flags, though. They’re actually fine as long as the conclusion preserves them as it applies the rule backward (which it doesn’t).
e
Most cars taken ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████ ██████████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███ ██ ████ ██████████ ███████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████
(E) is spot on except for the difference between facts and beliefs:
Premise: Taken to AAE –most→ Electrical Problems
Conclusion: Anastasia Thinks CarElectrical Problems –likely→ CarTaken to AAE
The conclusion kinda applies the premise’s rule backward. It just also changes “the car has electrical problems” to “Anastasia thinks the car has electrical problems.” That brand of flawed reasoning doesn’t occur in the stimulus.