Q25 - Journalist: The trade union members

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Match the Reasoning (a pattern of reasoning most similar to the above)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: A strike is likely.
Evidence: The union is likely to disagree on the arbitrator's recommendations, and if both sides of the union don't accept the recommendations, then there will be a strike.

Answer Anticipation:
There are three main ingredients in this argument: two premises, one conclusion. It's an argument through the contraspositive.
P1: A --> B
P2: ~B.
Conc: ~A
A = strike averted
B = union agrees to arbitrator's recommendations.

We should look for an argument that gives us a conditional premise, gives us a fact that triggers it (probably will trigger the contrapositive), and then concludes the other side of the conditional rule.

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) The first sentence provides the rule "if there's not more stock, the company will downsize". We need to trigger that rule with a fact that either says "there is not more stock" or "the company will not downsize". They tell us that "there is not more stock", which triggers "the company will downsize", which triggers "demand a change", which is the author's conclusion. This argument is more complex than the original, because it has
A ->B
B ->C
A.
Therefore, C.
It is also more certain than the original, since it concludes "we can be SURE".

(B) The rule says "donate --> new wing named after her". The conclusion is "will donate", which is not something we can conclude from that rule. Since the conclusion is making an invalid use of the rule, we know it doesn't match the original argument.

(C) The only conditional here is "if quarrel, then know how to resolve", but this rule is never triggered by any facts.

(D) YES. The rule provided here is "win --> good job hydrated". We are given reason to expect "NOT good job hydrated" and the author concludes it's likely that "NOT win". This looks good. It also happens to be a prediction and happens to match the idea that a contrapostive will PROBABLY be triggered.

(E) The rule provided is "if qualified teacher avail --> offered in spring". The argument says the TRIGGER is not happening (there are NOT qualified teachers avail), but that wouldn't allow us to make any inference. Thus, this invalid argument wouldn't match our original.

Takeaway/Pattern: Since the original argument functioned by giving us a conditional rule and then giving us a fact that would likely trigger the contraspositive, those are the most specific things to be looking for in each answer choice.

#officialexplanation

[Michelle5]

Hello! I was wondering if someone could show me the symbolism they did to represent the stimulus? Thank you! I was confused with the second sentence and the "only if" clause.

Thanks!!!!

Actually, looking at it now I got it in two seconds simply from the first sentence. Every answer choice except for answer choice D has a conditional as the first information and doesn't state a fact of something. Is that one way to do this?

[timmydoeslsat]

Hello! I was wondering if someone could show me the symbolism they did to represent the stimulus? Thank you! I was confused with the second sentence and the "only if" clause.

Thanks!!!!

Actually, looking at it now I got it in two seconds simply from the first sentence. Every answer choice except for answer choice D has a conditional as the first information and doesn't state a fact of something. Is that one way to do this?

The parallel reasoning question stem can be handled effectively with knowing the strength of the conclusion and the structure of the stimulus.

This one is really a matter of a contrapositive inference.

We know basically:

~Strike ---> Agree

Unlikely to Agree

So unlikely to ~Strike, which is to say likely to strike.

Notice the strength of the conclusion...nothing forceful or 100% conclusive.

So while I would not officially reject an answer that does not match that idea, I certainly will not have it first in line to check its content.

Answer choices:

(A) Too strong of a conclusion.
(B) Too strong of a conclusion.
(C) Too strong of a conclusion.
(D) Probable is used in the conclusion = hold for now.
(E) Too strong of a conclusion.

I will check answer choice D. If it not what I am looking for, I will eliminate and become more flexible on the conclusion wording. (In this case though, especially on valid parallel reasoning questions, the conclusion is such an important factor, so I cannot imagine the others having a chance)

Win ---> Hydrate

Not likely that Hydrate will happen.

Not likely that the win will happen.

This works.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Matching questions can be frustrating. There's a lot of reading to do and each answer choice has different subject matter. Unfortunately, grammar won't work as a way of matching. It happens that here, the right answer did begin with a statement of fact, followed by conditional logic. But our job is to match the logical form, not the order of the words or the punctuation. The logical form is:

No strike ----> Both sides accept arbitration

(contrapositive: Either side won't accept arbitration ----> strike)

Union unlikely to accept arbitration

Therefore, likely to be a strike

(D) has exactly that form. If he's no hydrated, he won't win the marathon. The sponsors usually don't hydrate well. So, he probably won't win the race.

I hope running through this again helps. Let me know if you have any more questions.

Demetri

[mydota]

Hi, I have a problem with the stimulus.

This is how I understand it.

IA (independent arbitration) would avert a strike only if both sides agree. In other words, if either side don't agree, IA will not avert a strike.

From past experience, they are not likely to agree, thus shouldn't be that IA would not likely to avert a strike in stead of strike is likely? I thought this was a flaw because IA would not avert it, maybe lots of other ways can. This is the reason I eliminated D because D does not have such a flaw.

Is my understanding correct?

[SelinaC875]

Sorry to bump this up, but I have the same question as @mydota. I am confused about whether we can equate the failure of independent arbitration with "a strike is likely." I initially interpreted this stimulus as a case of illegal negation, as successful independent arbitration is a sufficient condition of no strike, while the stimulus seems to treat it as a necessary condition.