PT126.S3.Q15 > Analytics

Hide analysis

Support Theodore will be able to file his tax return on time only in the event that he has an accountant prepare his tax return and the accountant does not ask Theodore for any additional documentation of his business expenses. ██ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████████ ██████████████ ██████████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██ █████

Argument Summary: English

Our argument introduces two necessary conditions to achieve a goal, says they’re mutually exclusive, then concludes the goal won’t be achieved.

Here’s an abstract summary with slightly more detail than the one above:

Theo needs two things to achieve his goal: he needs Thing 1 to happen, and he needs Thing 2 not to happen.
But if Thing 1 happens, Thing 2 is definitely gonna happen.
So Theo is screwed.

Argument Summary: Diagram

Filing tax return on time = File
Accountant files the return = Acc
Additional documents needed = Docs

Premise 1: File → Acc and /Docs
Premise 2: Acc → Docs
Conclusion: /File

Our correct answer is allowed to swap out individual terms (like maybe File turns to Ice Cream), but it must keep this structure.

Translation Notes

In Premise 1, “only” introduces the necessary condition, which has two terms joined by “and”.
Premise 2 has a simple “if, then” structure.
The Conclusion is marked by “Therefore”.

The answer to this particular question happens to preserve the argument’s “not” phrasing (“...and the accountant does not ask…”), so both the english summary and the diagram presented above preserve it too for ease of understanding. It’s important to note, though, that whether concepts are expressed in the positive or negative doesn’t matter in parallel questions. In other words, you can’t eliminate an answer choice just because it doesn’t include the word “not.”

15.

The pattern of reasoning in █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ████ ███████ █████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████

Question Type

Parallel method of reasoning

Objective: Parallel Questions

Parallel questions have a highly regimented theory and approach – they’re among the question types where following the curriculum yields the greatest advantage over approaching them “normally,” even if your core logical intuitions are very strong. Review these lessons. They’re important.

But in short, our job is to develop an abstract model of the stimulus’ argument, preserving the structure but not the subject matter, then take a shallow dip into the answer choices looking for structural mismatches. Usually that suffices to identify the correct answer, but sometimes we’ll need a deep dive to distinguish between the (usually just two) answer choices that remain after our shallow dip.

Given the demands ██ █████████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ████ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ █████ █ ███ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ████ ██████ ████████

Plenty of red flags here. What’s this “probably” about? Our argument deals in certainty throughout. Where are our two necessary conditions?

Realistically, your shallow dip should end after the first sentence lacks two necessary conditions.

Tovah cannot attend ███ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ███████████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ██████ █ ███████ ████ ██████

(B) starts off “Tovah needs one thing to attend the concert” which is immediately wrong. Our boy Theo needed two things. The other dissimilarities are best expressed by comparing (B)’s diagram to the one in the summary. They’re different! Look:

P1: Away → /Concert Next Week
P2: /Concert Next Week → /Concert This Month
P3: Away
Con: /Concert Next Month

10%

Mark's children will ███ ██ ███████ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ████ ████ ████ █████ █████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ████ ██ ███ ██ █████ ██████████ ████████ ██████████ ██████ ████ ███ ███ ████████ ████ █ █████ ████ ███████ ███████████ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ████ ████████

Plenty of mismatches here. On a realistic read, you should stop your shallow dip after the first sentence, in which there’s only one necessary condition and which features the suspicious phrase “some of the time”.

Just for fun, the conclusion is also a conditional claim (unless this happens, that won’t happen) instead of a categorical claim (that won’t happen).

If Teresa is ███ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ███ ████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████

Again, your shallow dip should end when the first sentence doesn’t feature two necessary conditions. This first sentence sets up an “either this or that” situation, and (D) goes on to say “it’s not this, so it must be that”. Here’s the diagram:

P1: First or Business
P2: /First
Con: Business

Susannah will have █ ████████ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██████████ ████ ███ ███ ████ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ████ █████████ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████████ █████ ██████████ ████████ ██████ ████████ ██ █████████

Susannah needs two things to achieve her goal: she needs Thing 1 to happen, and she needs Thing 2 not to happen.
But if Thing 1 happens, Thing 2 is definitely gonna happen.
So Susannah is screwed.

Here’s the diagram:

Relaxing vacation = Relax
Children behave well = Behave
Suspect children are planning mischief = Suspect

Premise 1: Relax → Behave and /Suspect
Premise 2: Behave → Suspect
Conclusion: /Relax

82%

PrepTest 126 - Section 3 - Question 15

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action