QUESTION TEXT: Critic: Journalists should have reasonable knowledge…
QUESTION TYPE: Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Journalists should have reasonable statistics knowledge.
REASONING: If they do not have this knowledge, they can make mistakes. One journalist misinterpreted data and made an erroneous report.
ANALYSIS: Let’s boil this down as close to the base structure as possible. The author essentially says:
1. I think X should be true.
2. If X were not true, something bad could happen.
3. Here is an example of when X was not true and something bad happened.
We can skim the answers to find one following all three parts of this structure. We want an answer where the author cites a specific past example to demonstrate that not following their conclusion would be bad.
___________
- This argument uses a future example of what could go wrong, not a past example of what did go wrong.
- CORRECT. The author says schools should have recess (#1 in analysis above), that children might incur health risks if they don’t (#2), and gives an example of a school without recess (#3).
- This answer is missing a specific past example, which was present in the critic’s argument.
- This answer is missing both #2 and #3 from the analysis above. Instead, we get “X should be true. It would be good if X were true”, which is not the same pattern of reasoning.
- This answer is missing a specific past example, which was present in the critic’s argument.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply