Research has shown that impoverished people in this country

Research has shown that impoverished people in this country buy unhealthy snack foods on a daily basis because this kind of food is generally less expensive than more nutritious food. Therefore, improving the quality of one’s diet is a crucial step for rising out of poverty.

Which of the following choices uses reasoning that most clearly parallels the reasoning in the argument above?

A new study clearly demonstrates that a weed killer containing the ingredient Zorphon will make pets sick even if those pets have had minimal exposure to the weed killer. Therefore, people with pets should choose weed killers that do not contain any chemicals.

The size of the federal deficit has been unnecessarily increased by the unchecked expenditures of the previous administration. Therefore, any political party wishing to bring the deficit back down to manageable levels would be wise to avoid the economic policies of the previous administration.

It is well known that many students at state colleges take up residency in the state just to secure discounted tuition. Discounts of this sort adversely affect the financial standing of many colleges and should be reserved for students who have attended secondary school in the state.

Anyone looking to secure a home mortgage these days must avoid banks that advertise their low rates on the Internet, because all the banks that have recently been investigated for improper banking procedures have used the Internet to run ads that promote unrealistically low rates.

A recent study shows that people who drive to work do less weekend driving than car owners who take public transportation to work. To reduce the number of people who drive to work when they could be taking public transportation, buses and subways should be more readily available during the weekend.

Here is the OE...

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.

Here is the OE...

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.

VERITAS PREP OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Explanation: The evidence in the stimulus is that A (poverty) leads to B (bad diet), while the conclusion is that “not A” (not being poor) leads to “not B” (a good diet). This is not a logical conclusion based on the evidence. By forming the contrapositive of the first premise, we could logically conclude that if you have a good diet, then you are not in poverty. NOTE: The phrase “leads to” in the explanation of the conclusion above can be confusing. We are told that a good diet is crucial, which is like saying that it is necessary. This does NOT mean that a good diet guarantees non-poverty. Instead, non-poverty guarantees a good diet. Therefore, anyone who is not poor has a good diet (“if not A, then not B”), even though the good diet came before the rise out of poverty. It’s like saying that taking the GMAT is a crucial step for going to business school, which translates into “if you want to be in business school, then you must take the GMAT.”

In the correct choice, the evidence comes after the word “because”: If a bank acted improperly (A), then it advertised on the Internet (B). The conclusion, found at the beginning of the answer, is that proper banks (not A) do not advertise on the Internet (not B). As in the stimulus, we are given “if A then B” as evidence, and “if not A then not B” as an (illogical) conclusion. Note that the conclusion is in the beginning of the argument, while the conclusion in the stimulus is in the second sentence. This difference is irrelevant.

(A) We are told that a weed killer with Zorphon will lead to sick pets, and therefore, if you don’t want sick pets don’t get a weed killer with any chemicals. In other words the evidence is if A (weed killer with Zorphon), then B (sick pets); the conclusion is if not B (not sick pets), then C (get weed killers without ANY chemicals).

(B) The evidence here is that A (unnecessary expenditures) has led to B (rising deficit). The conclusion advises against ANY policies of the last administration, not just unnecessary expenditures.

(C) This argument merely says that a particularly policy – granting discounted tuition to students who have only recently lived in the state – should be changed. There is no cause-and-effect argument, as there is in the stimulus.

(E) The evidence is that people who drive to work drive less on the weekends than people who take public transportation to work. This does not set up a clear cause-and-effect argument, as the stimulus does. Furthermore, it then discusses reducing the number of people who drive to work when they could take public transportation, which is a subset of the first group discussed. Thus, this argument is not parallel to the stimulus.