Self-study
Support Some visitors to the park engage in practices that seriously harm the animals. ███████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ████ █████ █████████ █████████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ █████ █████████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████
Method of Reasoning
This is a valid argument based on an inference from a “some” statement and “no” statement.
Premises:
visitors ←some→ harm animals
know that practices harm → would not harm
Conclusion:
visitors ←some→ NOT know that practices harm
25.
The pattern of reasoning exhibited ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
Some of the ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ██ ██████
This is not a valid argument, so it can’t be parallel to the valid argument in the stimulus. (A) isn’t valid because the people who will be fired do not have to include anyone who worked in this department.
b
Some of the ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ███ ███████ ███████████ ███ ███ █████ █████████ ████████ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ █████ ███ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ███████████
This is a valid argument, but it’s not based on the combination of “some” and “no.” Rather, it’s based on the combination of “some” and “all.” Ordinarily this wouldn’t make a difference, but there’s another answer that’s a closer match. Another way to think about this answer is that it doesn’t involve use of a contrapositive, whereas the argument in the stimulus does involve the contrapositive inference.
c
Some of the ██████ ██████ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ████ ██ ████ █████████ █████ ███████ ███ █████ █████████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ █████████
This is a valid argument based on the combination of “some” and “no.”
people polled ←some→ live outside
vote in city election → NOT live outside
Conclusion:
people polled ←some→ NOT vote in city election
d
All of the ████ ████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████████ ████ █████ ██████████████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ███ █████ ███████████████
Although this is a valid argument, this doesn’t involve a combination of “some” and “no.” The premises look like this:
original planners → responsible
original planners → NOT admit responsibility
This does not match the premise structure in the stimulus.
e
Some members of ███ ███████ █████ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ███ █████████
This isn’t valid, so it can’t be parallel to the argument in the stimulus. The argument would have been valid if it had concluded that some members of the Liberal party are NOT members of the city council.