Support Every Labrador retriever in my neighborhood is a well-behaved dog. ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ██ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ██ █████████ ███ ███ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ ███████████ ████ █████████
The stimulus supports a causal conclusion – actually, two causal conclusions – with correlative premises. That’s all you need – all the wrong answers either lack two causal conclusions or introduce new dynamics not present in the stimulus.
You should absolutely aspire to identify the correlation / causation dynamic up front. And while almost all Parallel questions demand a detailed model of the stimulus’ structure, Parallel Flaw questions often don’t – if you’ve identified a common flaw, that justifies a shallow dip into the answer choices. That will often suffice to separate the right answer from the wrong ones, as it does here.
Here’s the argument’s full structure:
P1: All the Labs [in my neighborhood] are Well-behaved.
P2: Well-behaved pets are all Trained.
________
C1: Training causes Well-behaved.
C2: Genetics don’t cause Well-behaved.
Notably, this stimulus does not confuse sufficiency with necessity. Easy mistake to make because the conclusion seems to apply premise 2 backward. But the conclusion isn't a conditional claim at all. It's merely a causal claim that training is the cause of good behavior in the Labrador retrievers that we observed to have good behavior.
The flawed reasoning in which ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
All the students ██ ██████ ██████ █████ ██ █████ ████████ ████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███ ███ ████ ████ █████████ █████ ███ ███████ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ████ ████ █████ ████████ ██ ██████
(A) should fail your shallow dip on the word should, which indicates a normative conclusion (one issuing a value judgment). That’s a common dynamic you should aspire to recognize when you see it, and it’s absent in the stimulus.
(A)’s conclusion also isn’t causal – a matching version would say:
C: It is good teachers, not [something else], that account for Bryker’s students excelling.
Its structure otherwise matches up quite well with the stimulus’, though, which just heightens the importance of recognizing these common flaws up front.
Whenever it snows █████ ███ ██████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ ██ ████████ █████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ ██████ ████ █████████ ██ ██ ██ ███ ███ ██████ ███ █████████████ ████ ██████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ██████
Ideally you should eliminate the other answers on your shallow dip, then loop back around to (B) to confirm it matches before picking it. As a start, (B) preserves the stimulus’ correlative premises and two causal conclusions. Here’s the full structure:
P1: Every time it Snows [on the highways], there are Hella Crashes.
P2: Hella Crashes means Careless drivers.*
________
C1: Carelessness causes Hella Crashes
C2: Icy Roads don’t cause Hella Crashes.
*Parsing P2 the right way means recognizing “unless” as a group 3 indicator.
Every musician I ████ ██ █ ████ ███████ █████ █████████████ █ ████ ██ █ ███ ███████ █████ ██ ██ █ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ███████████ ███ ████ ████████
(C) fails for two main reasons. First, the word “most” in its conclusion turns it from an absolute claim (about one thing causing another) to a relative claim (about one thing causing another more than other stuff does). This relative vs. absolute mismatch is a common distinction you should aspire to notice when you see it.
Second, (C)’s conclusion introduces the new concepts of rhythm and counting, which don’t appear in the premises. It assumes musicians have rhythm and mathematicians can count which, while reasonable, is still a structural mismatch with the stimulus.
It’s otherwise pretty solid. Better even than it might seem at first, because premise 2 works out if you think about its contrapositive:
P1: All the Musicians [I know] are Good Dancers.
P2: All Good Dancers are not Mathematicians [I know].
________
C1: Rhythm causes Good Dancing
C2: Counting doesn’t cause Good Dancing
All of the ████ █████ ██ ██ ███████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ██ █ ████ █████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ████████
Its many structural mismatches aside, (D) should die on your shallow dip at the word must, which indicates a normative conclusion (one issuing a value judgment). That’s a common dynamic you should aspire to recognize when you see it, and it’s absent in the stimulus.
All of the ████████ ██ ██ ███████ █████ ████████ ██ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ████ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ██ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ ████████ █████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ██ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███ ████ █████
(E) should fail your shallow dip because it lacks one of the causal conclusions. We’ve got “good work doesn’t cause A’s,” but we don’t have a conclusion about what does cause A’s.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.
By signing up you agree to our
terms of service.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy
and
Terms of Service
apply.