Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumParallel Conditional Logic

If a medical device is to be approved for surgical use, it must undergo three distinct phases of clinical trials. However, any device that relies primarily on experimental nanomaterials will not be permitted to undergo three distinct phases of clinical trials. Therefore, devices relying primarily on experimental nanomaterials will not be approved for surgical use.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most logically parallel to that of the argument above?

  1. If a chef is to earn a prestigious culinary award, the restaurant must offer an original tasting menu. But any restaurant operating out of a temporary pop-up space cannot offer an original tasting menu. Thus, temporary pop-up spaces will never earn a prestigious culinary award.Answer
  2. B
    If a novel is to win the national literary prize, it must sell over a million copies. Any book endorsed by the popular television book club will sell over a million copies. Therefore, any book endorsed by the popular television book club will win the national literary prize.
  3. C
    If a startup is to receive elite venture funding, it must demonstrate consistent quarterly revenue growth. But tech companies focused solely on free mobile games will not receive elite venture funding. Hence, tech companies focused solely on free mobile games will not demonstrate consistent quarterly revenue growth.
  4. D
    If a student wants to graduate with high honors, they must complete an original research thesis. Anyone who completes an original research thesis must spend extensive time in the university archives. Therefore, a student wanting to graduate with high honors must spend extensive time in the university archives.
  5. E
    If an animal is to be classified as a mammal, it must have hair and produce milk. Adult amphibians do not have hair. Therefore, adult amphibians cannot produce milk.

Answer

The correct answer is the argument about the chef, culinary awards, and pop-up spaces.
The correct answer accurately mirrors the logically valid structure of the stimulus. The stimulus argues that achieving a goal (A) requires a condition (B), a certain entity (C) cannot meet condition (B), and thus entity (C) cannot achieve goal (A). The credited choice perfectly replicates this: achieving the culinary award (A) requires a tasting menu (B), pop-up spaces (C) cannot offer a tasting menu (B), so pop-up spaces (C) cannot achieve the award (A).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Map the formal logic of the stimulus.
Premise 1: Approved -> 3 Phases. Premise 2: Nanomaterials -> NOT 3 Phases. Conclusion: Nanomaterials -> NOT Approved.
Identifying the abstract skeleton of the argument is essential for finding an exact structural match.
2
Analyze the validity of the stimulus.
The argument is valid. It relies on the contrapositive of Premise 1 (NOT 3 Phases -> NOT Approved) combined with Premise 2.
A parallel argument must match the exact validity (valid or flawed) of the original stimulus.
3
Evaluate the options against the established structural map.
The culinary award argument translates to: Premise 1: Award -> Tasting Menu. Premise 2: Pop-up -> NOT Tasting Menu. Conclusion: Pop-up -> NOT Award. This perfectly mirrors the stimulus.
Eliminating arguments with different structures or logical flaws isolates the correct parallel reasoning.

Key Concept

Parallel Conditional Logic involving a valid contrapositive deduction.
Rate this question

Topics

Parallel Conditional Logic

More questions from this topic