Critical Reasoning

Topic – Analogous Reasoning

Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)

At Flordyce University any student who wants to participate in a certain archaeological dig is
eligible to do so but only if the student has taken at least one archaeology course and has shown
an interest in the field. Many students who have shown an interest in archaeology never take even
one archaeology course. Therefore, many students who want to participate in the dig will be
ineligible to do so.
1. The flawed reasoning of which one of the following arguments is most similar to
that of the argument above?
(a) Theoretically, any jar is worth saving regardless of its size, but only if it has a lid. Therefore,
since some jars are sure not to have lids, there are certain sizes of jar that are actually not
worth saving.
(b) For a horse that is well schooled to be ideal for beginning riders that horse must also be
surefooted and gentle. Many horses that are surefooted are not gentle. Therefore, many well-
schooled horses are not ideal for beginning riders.
(c) If an author’s first novel has a romantic setting and a suspenseful plot, it will become a best-
seller. Since many authors’ first novels have neither, not many first novels become best-
sellers.
(d) Any automobile that is more than a few years old is eventually sure to need repairs if it is not
regularly maintained. Many automobiles are more than a few years old, but still do not need
repairs. Therefore, many automobiles are regularly maintained.

Plant species differ in that renewed growth in spring can be triggered by day length or by
temperature or else by a combination of both. Day length is the same, year after year, for any
given date. Therefore, any plant species that starts to grow again on widely different dates in
different years resumes growth at least in part in response to temperature.
2. Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to
the argument above?
(a) In Xandia, medical assistant trainees must either complete a formal training course or work for
one year under the close supervision of a physician. Since few physicians are willing to act as
supervisors, it must be true that most medical assistant trainees in Xandia take the training
course.
(b) In the Crawford area, easterly winds mean rain will come and westerly winds mean dry
weather will come; winds from other directions do not occur. Therefore, since it is currently
raining in Crawford, there must be an easterly wind blowing there now.
(c) Some landfills charge garbage companies by volume only, some charge by weight only, and
all others use a formula sensitive to both volume and weight. So if at a particular landfill the
charges for two particular loads of equal volume dumped on the same day are different,
weight must determine, or help determine, charges at that landfill.
(d) Depending on volume of business, either one or two or three store detectives are needed for
adequate protection against shoplifting. Therefore, if on any particular day store management
has decided that three detectives will be needed, it must be because business that day is
expected to be heavy.

A letter submitted to the editor of a national newsmagazine was written and signed by a Dr.
Shirley Martin who, in the text of the letter, mentions being a professor at a major North American
medical school. Knowing that fewer than 5 percent of the professors at such schools are women,
the editor reasons that the chances are better than 19 to 1 that the letter was written by a man.
3. Which one of the following involves flawed reasoning most like that used by the
editor?
(a) Since more than 19 out of every 20 animals in the wildlife preserve are mammals and fewer
than 1 out of 20 are birds, there is a greater than 95 percent chance that the animal Emily
saw flying between two trees in the wildlife refuge yesterday morning was a mammal.
(b) Fewer than 1 in 20 of the manuscripts submitted to Argon Publishing Co. are accepted for
publication. Since only 15 manuscripts were submitted last week, there is almost no chance
that any of them will be accepted for publication.

Page 1 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
(c) Fewer that 5 percent of last year’s graduating class took Latin in secondary school. Howard
took Latin in secondary school, so if he had graduated last year, it is likely that one or the
other Latin scholars would not have graduated.
(d) More that 95 percent of the planes built by UBC last year met government standards for large
airliners. Since small planes account for just under 5 percent of UBC’s output last year, it is
almost certain that all their large planes met government standards.

The year 1917, 1937, 1956, 1968, 1979, and 1990 are all notable for the occurrence of both
popular uprisings and near-maximum sunspot activity. During heavy sunspot activity, there is a
sharp rise in positively charged ions in the air people breathe, and positively charged ions are
known to make people anxious and irritable. Therefore, it is likely that sunspot activity has
actually been a factor in triggering popular uprisings.
4. Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that in
the passage?
(a) The ancient Greeks sometimes attempted to predict the outcome of future events by watching
the flight patterns of birds. Since the events themselves often matched the predictions, the
birds were probably responding to some factor that also influenced the events.
(b) Martha, Sidney, and Hilary are the city’s three most powerful politicians, and all three
graduated from Ridgeview high School. Although Ridgeview never had a reputation for
excellence, it must have been a good school to have produced three such successful
graduates.
(c) Unusually cold weather last December coincided with a rise in fuel prices. When it is cold,
people use more fuel to keep warm; and when more fuel is used, prices rise. Therefore if
prices are high next winter, it will be the result of cold weather.
(d) Acme’s most productive managers are consistently those who occupy the corner offices,
which have more windows than other offices at Acme. Since people are more alert when they
are exposed to abundant natural light, the greater productivity of these managers is probably
at least in part a result of their working in the corner offices.

The commissioner has announced that Judge Khalid, who was on the seven-member panel
appointed to resolve the Amlec labour dispute, will have sole responsibility for resolving the
Simdon labour dispute. Since in its decision the Amlec panel showed itself both reasonable and
fair, the two sides in the Simdon dispute are undoubtedly justified in the confidence they have
expressed in the reasonableness and fairness of the arbitrator assigned to their case.
5. Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most parallel to that
contained in the passage?
(a) Representing the school board, Marcia Barthes presented to the school’s principal a list of
recently elected school board members. Since only an elected member of the school board
can act as its representative. Ms. Barthes’s name undoubtedly appears on that list.
(b) Alan Caldalf, who likes being around young children, has decided to become a pediatrician.
Since the one characteristic common to all good pediatricians is that they like young children,
Mr. Caldalf will undoubtedly be a very good pediatrician.
(c) Jorge Diaz is a teacher at a music school nationally known for the excellence of its conducting
faculty. Since Mr. Diaz has recently been commended for the excellence of his teaching, he is
undoubtedly a member of the school’s conducting faculty.
(d) Ula Borg, who has sold real estate for Arcande Realty for many years, undoubtedly sold fewer
houses last year that she had the year before since the number of houses sold last year by
Arcande Realty is far lower than the number sold the previous year.

A recent study monitored the blood pressure of people petting domestic animals in the laboratory.
The blood pressure of some of these people lowered while petting the animals. Therefore, for
anyone of the people so affected, owning a pet would result in that person having a lower average
blood pressure.
6. The flawed pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most similar to that in
which one of the following?
(a) Because a single dose of a drug acts as a remedy for a particular ailment, a healthy person
can ward off that ailment by taking single doses regularly.
(b) Because buying an automobile is very expensive, people should hold on to an automobile,
once bought, for as long as it can be maintained in running condition.

Page 2 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
(c) Since pruning houseplants is enjoyable for some people, those people should get rid of
houseplants that do not require frequent pruning.
(d) Since riding in a boat for a few minutes is relaxing for some people, those people would be
more relaxed generally if those people owned boats.

Everyone who is a gourmet cook enjoys a wide variety foods and spices. Since no one who enjoys
a wide variety of foods and spices prefers bland foods to all her foods, it follows that anyone who
prefers bland foods to all other foods is not a gourmet cook.
7. The pattern of reasoning displayed in the argument above is most similar to that
displayed in which one of the following?
(a) All of the paintings in the Huang Collection will be put up for auction next week. Since the
paintings to be auctioned next week are by a wide variety of artists, it follows that the
paintings in the Huang Collection are by a wide variety of artists.
(b) All of the paintings in the Huang Collection are abstract. Since no abstract painting will be
included in next week’s art auction, nothing to be included in next week’s art auction is a
painting in the Huang Collection.
(c) All of the paintings in the Huang Collection are superb works of art. Since non-e of the
paintings in the Huang Collection is by Roué, it stands to reason that no painting by Roué is a
superb work of art.
(d) Every postimpressionist painting from the Huang Collection will be auctioned off next week.
No pop art paintings from the Huang Collection will be auctioned off next week. Hence non-e
of the pop art paintings to be auctioned off next week will be from the Huang Collection.

Reptiles are air-breathing vertebrates with completely ossified skeletons; so alligators must be air-
breathing vertebrates with completely ossified skeletons.
8. In terms of its logical features, the argument above most resembles which one of
the following?
(a) Green plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen back into the air; so it follows that
grass takes in carbon dioxide and releases oxygen into the air.
(b) Some red butterflies are poisonous to birds that prey on them; so this particular red butterfly
is poisonous to birds that prey on it.
(c) Knowledge about the empirical world can be gained from books; so Virginia Woolf’s book A
Room of One’s Own must provide knowledge about the empirical world.
(d) Dierdre has seen every film directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder; so Dierdre must have seen
Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, a film directed by Fassbinder.

In Sheldon most bicyclists aged 18 and over have lights on their bicycles, whereas most bicyclists
under the age of 18 do not. It follows that in Sheldon most bicyclists who have lights on their
bicycles are at least 18 yean old.
9. Which one of the following exhibits a pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to
that in the argument above?
(a) Most of the people in Sheldon buy gasoline on Mondays only. But almost everyone in Sheldon
buys groceries on Tuesdays only. It follows that fewer than half of the people in Sheldon buy
gasoline on the same day on which they buy groceries.
(b) The Sheldon Library lent more books during the week after it began lending videos than it had
in the entire preceding month. It follows that the availability of videos was responsible for the
increase in the number of books lent.
(c) Most of the residents of Sheldon who voted in the last election are on the Conservative party’s
mailing list, whereas most of Sheldon’s residents who did not vote are not on the list. It follows
that most of the residents of Sheldon on the Conservative party’s mailing list voted in the last
election.
(d) In the country where Sheldon is located, every town that has two or more fire trucks has a
town pool, whereas most towns that have fewer than two fire trucks do not have a town pool.
It follows that Sheldon, which has a town pool, must have at least two fire trucks.

People who are red/green colour-blind cannot distinguish between green and brown, Gerald
cannot distinguish between green and brown. Therefore Gerald is red/green colour-blind.
10. Which one of the following most closely parallels the reasoning in the argument
presented in the passage?

Page 3 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
(a) People who are fair-skinned suffer from sunburn. William is fair-skinned. Therefore William
suffers from sunburn.
(b) People who are suffering from sinusitis lose their sense of smell. Mary has lost her sense of
smell. Therefore Mary is suffering from sinusitis.
(c) People who have suffered from jaundice cannot become blood donors, Jean is a blood donor.
Therefore Jean has not suffered from jaundice.
(d) People who are colour-blind cannot become airline pilots. Arthur is colour-blind. Therefore
Arthur cannot become an airline pilot.

If Max were guilty, he would not ask the police to investigate. Therefore, his asking the police to
investigate shows that he is not guilty.
11. The logical structure of the argument above is most similar to which one of the
following?
(a) If Lucille were in the next room, I would not be able to see her. Therefore, the fact that I can
see her shows that she is not in the next room.
(b) If Sam were rich, he would not spend his vacation in Alaska. Therefore, his spending his
vacation in the Bahamas shows that he is rich.
(c) If Joe were over 40 he would not want to learn to ski. Therefore, the fact that he does not want
to learn to ski shows that he is over 40.
(d) If Mark were a good cook, he would not put cinnamon in the chili. Therefore, the fact that he is
not a good cook shows that he put cinnamon in the chili.

The formation of hurricanes that threaten the Unite States mainland is triggered by high
atmospheric winds off the western coast Africa. When abundant rain falls in sub-Saharan Africa,
hurricanes afterward hit the United States mainland with particular frequency. Therefore, the
abundant rains must somehow promote the ability of the winds to form hurricanes.
12. Which one of the following arguments contains a flaw that is most similar to one in
the argument above?
(a) People who exercise vigorously tend to sleep well. Therefore, people who exercise vigorously
tend to be healthy.
(b) Cars drive faster on long city blocks than on short city blocks. Long blocks are thus more
dangerous for pedestrians than short blocks.
(c) Many people who later become successful entrepreneurs played competitive sports in college.
Therefore, playing competitive sports must enhance a person’s entrepreneur ability.
(d) The blossoms of the chicory plant close up in full sun. Therefore the chicory plant’s blossoms
must open up in the dark.

Although all contemporary advertising tries to persuade, only a small portion of contemporary
advertising can be considered morally reprehensible. It nevertheless follows that some attempts at
persuasion can be regarded as morally reprehensible.
13. Which one of the following, in its logical features, most closely parallels the
reasoning used in passage?
(a) None of the chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the original dyes. Hence,
the colours used by Michelangelo will be fully restored.
(b) Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on
investment. Hence, some of these studies are not reliable.
(c) A good manager always makes important decisions on the basis of adequate data, although of
course some managers fail to do this. It follows that some managers are not good managers.
(d) Some short poems are thematically pluralistic, since some sonnets are characterized by such
pluralism, and all sonnets are short poems.

Student X: I’m worried about failing the course.

Student Y: Don’t worry. As the professor said, any student who fails to submit a term paper will
fail the course. So just make sure that you submit a term paper, and you will not fail the course.
14. Which one of the following exhibits the same logical flaw as that exhibited in
student Y’s remark?
(a) Any restaurant that serves paella without saffron is not authentic. So if the restaurant serves
paella with turmeric instead of saffron, it is authentic.
(b) Any native fishers who earn their livings by fishing the local rivers and lakes are worth hiring
as guides. So a person who is a native fisher is worth hiring as a guide.

Page 4 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
(c) Anyone who can consistently bowl over 200 points per game should become a professional
bowler. If you can consistently bowl over 200 points per game, you should become a
professional bowler.
(d) Any engineer who cannot solve the equation in a reasonable amount of time will not get a
license. So if you are an engineer who can solve the equation in a reasonable amount of time,
you will get a license.

Everyone knew that if the team’s star player were too badly injured to play in Saturday’s game,
the team would lose. Since the team won, the star player must have played.
15. Which one of the following is most similar in logic to the argument above?
(a) Red spots on the feet are a symptom of a disease called borosis. This patient has green spots
on his feet; therefore, he does not have borosis.
(b) If the frost comes late, the farmer has a good crop. Because the frost was late, the farmer
must have a good crop.
(c) The instructor in a course ruled that if a student received an A on either the term paper or the
final exam, then the student would receive an A for the course. Anne received an A on the
term paper and a C on the final exam. Therefore, Anne received an A for the course.
(d) People in driving school realized that if Pete had another auto accident, he would be expelled
from the driving school. Pete was not expelled from the driving school. Therefore, he must not
have had another auto accident.

Politician: Now that we are finally cleaning up the industrial pollution in the bay, we must start
making the bay more accessible to the public for recreational purposes.
Reporter: But if we increase public access to the bay, it will soon become polluted again.
Politician: Not true. The public did not have access to the bay, and it got polluted. Therefore, if
and when the public is given access to the bay, it will not get polluted.
16. Which one of the following most closely parallels the flawed pattern of reasoning in
the politician’s reply to the reporter?
(a) If there had been a full moon last night, the tide would be higher than usual today. Since the
tide is no higher than usual, there must not have been a full moon last night.
(b) The detective said that whoever stole the money would be spending it conspicuously by now.
Jones is spending money conspicuously, so he must be the thief.
(c) When prisoners convicted of especially violent crimes were kept in solitary confinement,
violence in the prisons increased. Therefore, violence in the prisons will not increase if such
prisoners are allowed to mix with fellow prisoners.
(d) To get a driver’s license, one must pass a written test. Smith passed the written test, so she
must have gotten a driver’s license.

The Volunteer for Literacy Program would benefit if Dolores takes Victors place as director, since
Dolores is far more skillful than Victor is at securing the kind of financial support the program
needs and Dolores does not have Victor’s propensity for alienating program’s most dedicated
volunteers.
17. The pattern of reasoning in the argument above is most closely paralleled in which
one of the following?
(a) It would be more convenient for Dominique to take a bus to school than to take the subway,
since the bus stops closer to her house than does the subway and, unlike the subway, the bus
goes directly to the school.
(b) Joshua’s interest would be better served by taking the bus to get to his parent’s house rather
than by taking an airplane, since his primary concern is to travel as cheaply as possible and
taking the bus is less expensive than going by airplane.
(c) Belinda will get to the concert more quickly by subway than by taxi since the concert takes
place on a Friday evening and on Friday evenings traffic near the concert hall is exceptionally
heavy.
(d) Anita would benefit financially by taking the train to work rather than driving her car, since
when she drives she has to pay parking fees and the daily fee for parking a car is higher than
a round-trip train ticket.

The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the
garden were tall plants.

Page 5 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
18. Which one of the following exhibits faulty reasoning most similar to the faulty
reasoning in the argument above?
(a) The only dogs in the show were poodles and they were all black poodles. So all the dogs in the
show were black.
(b) All the buildings on the block were tall. The only buildings on the block were office buildings
and residential towers. So all the office buildings on the block were tall buildings.
(c) All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus,
the only primates in the zoo were small primates.
(d) The only fruit in the kitchen was pears but the pears were not ripe. Thus, non-e of the fruit in
the kitchen was ripe.

Further evidence bearing on Jamison’s activities must have come to light. On the basis of
previously available evidence alone, it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a
party to the fraud, and Jamison’s active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively
established.
19. The pattern of reasoning exhibited in the argument above most closely parallels
that exhibited in which one of the following?
(a) Smith must not have purchased his house within the last year. He is listed as the owner of that
house on the old list of property owners and anyone on the old list could not have purchased
his or her property within the last year.
(b) Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes today. Had she done so, she could not
have been in Nantes until this afternoon, but she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11
o’clock this morning.
(c) Nofris must have lied when she said that she had not authorized the investigation. There is no
doubt that she did authorize it, and authorizing and investigation is not something anyone is
likely to have forgotten.
(d) Waugh must have known that last night’s class was canceled. Waugh was in the library
yesterday and it would have been impossible for anyone in the library not to have seen the
cancellation notices.

In most corporations the salaries of executives are set by a group from the corporation’s board of
directors. Since the board’s primary mission is to safeguard the economic health of the
corporation rather than to make its executives rich, this way of setting executives salaries is
expected to prevent excessively large salaries. But, clearly, this expectation is based on poor
reasoning. After all, most members of a corporation’s board are themselves executives of some
corporation and can expect to benefit from setting generous benchmarks for executives salaries.
20. Which one of the following practices is vulnerable to a line of criticism most parallel
to that used in the argument in the passage?
(a) in medical malpractice suits, giving physicians not directly involved in a suit a major role in
determining the damages due to successful plaintiffs
(b) in a legislature, allowing the legislators to increase their own salaries only if at least two-thirds
of them vote in favour of an increase
(c) to work both fast and accurately by paying them by the piece but counting only pieces of
acceptable quality
(d) in a sports competition decided by judges’ scores, selecting the judges from among people
retired from that sport after successful careers

Page 6 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)

Answers and Explanations:

1. (b). Reasoning Explanation: The passage highlights a rule created to address a

problem: the sports figure's decision to avoid combining publicity and playing tours in the
same city due to past issues. The reasoning follows from this rule to a specific case: her
trip to London for competition where she will not be making publicity appearances. This is
a clear example of applying a general rule to a particular situation to prevent issues,
making it a cause-effect relationship grounded in policy. Option (a): This option involves
a cause-effect relationship, asserting that the presence of the Acme Bugkiller leads to the
elimination of wasps in the garden. However, this reasoning lacks the application of a
general policy or rule like in the passage. The passage is built on a specific decision to
avoid combining two activities based on previous issues, which is not evident in (a). The
reasoning in (a) assumes the effectiveness of the bug killer without considering external
variables or policy. Thus, it does not parallel the reasoning in the passage, making it an
incorrect answer. Option (b): Option (b) mirrors the reasoning in the passage very
closely. It involves a rule that the hospital staff only attends to minor emergencies when
no critical emergencies are present. When the staff attends to minor emergencies on a
given night, it logically follows that there were no critical emergencies at the time. This
reasoning is similar to the sports figure’s rule applied to her specific trip, making (b) the
correct answer. Both scenarios apply a general rule to a specific situation, maintaining
consistency in reasoning. Option (c): Option (c) talks about tomato plants and their need
for hot summers to thrive, making a prediction based on the general observation of plant
behaviour. While it applies a general idea to a specific case, it lacks the prescriptive
application of a rule as seen in the original passage. The passage emphasizes the decision
to avoid issues through policy, which is not the case here. This reasoning does not involve
a rule applied to prevent a problem, making it an incorrect parallel to the passage's
reasoning. Option (d): Option (d) describes a causal chain where studying leads to
higher grades, which in turn leads to better job opportunities. While the reasoning is
logical, it does not align with the passage’s use of a rule applied to avoid a problem. The
original passage’s reasoning is rooted in a policy decision to prevent complications from
combining two activities, but (d) simply lays out a sequence of logical consequences
without the application of a rule. This makes it an incorrect match to the reasoning in the
passage, as it lacks the preventive nature central to the original argument.
2. (c). Reasoning Explanation: The passage asserts that plant species resume growth in
response to day length or temperature, or both, and uses this to conclude that
temperature must influence the timing of growth in species that grow on different dates
each year. The reasoning connects a known factor (day length) with variability (different
growth dates) and attributes this variability to temperature, suggesting that temperature
is a crucial factor in triggering growth. This reasoning pattern is about linking observed
variability to an influential factor not yet fully established as a cause in the specific case.
Option (a): Option (a) discusses how in Xandia, trainees must either take a formal course
or work under a physician. The argument concludes that since few physicians are willing
to supervise, most trainees must take the course. While this is a cause-effect relationship,
it does not parallel the reasoning in the passage, which attributes variability (growth
dates) to an additional factor (temperature). The reasoning in (a) is about available
options, not about correlating a known factor (day length) with a variable outcome
(growth dates). Therefore, it does not match the reasoning pattern of the passage.

Page 7 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
Option (b): Option (b) concludes that since it is raining, an easterly wind must be
blowing in Crawford. It assumes that a specific factor (easterly winds) directly correlates
with a weather outcome (rain). This reasoning is different from the passage's reasoning,
which links variability (growth dates) to an unknown factor (temperature). In the passage,
day length is a known factor, and the reasoning connects variability to an additional
factor. While both involve connecting two elements, the reasoning in (b) is more about
direct correlation, whereas the passage uses the known to explain the unknown. Hence,
(b) is not the correct parallel. Option (c): Option (c) presents a similar reasoning pattern
to the passage. It discusses landfills that charge based on both volume and weight, and
concludes that if two loads of equal volume have different charges, weight must influence
the charges. This reasoning connects a known variable (volume) to an additional factor
(weight) that helps explain the observed variation (different charges). Like the passage,
which uses day length to explain variable growth dates, (c) connects an established
variable (volume) with an unexplained factor (weight). Therefore, (c) mirrors the
passage’s reasoning most closely and is the correct answer. Option (d): Option (d)
argues that the number of store detectives needed depends on business volume. It
concludes that if three detectives are required, business must be expected to be heavy.
This reasoning follows a cause-effect relationship, but it does not parallel the passage's
structure. The passage reasons that growth dates are influenced by temperature due to
variability, while (d) makes a straightforward prediction based on an established condition
(business volume). The reasoning in (d) does not involve correlating variability with an
additional factor (like temperature in the passage). Thus, (d) is not the correct parallel.
3. (a). Reasoning Explanation: In the passage, the editor assumes that since fewer than
5% of professors at a medical school are women, a letter written by a woman professor is
unlikely, concluding it was probably written by a man. This reasoning is flawed because
the sample size is too small to make a valid statistical inference about the author’s
gender. It generalizes from a percentage to an individual case without accounting for the
actual number of women professors in the context. The reasoning applies a general
statistical fact incorrectly to a specific scenario. Option (a): Option (a) parallels the
editor’s reasoning. It asserts that since most animals in a preserve are mammals, there is
a greater than 95% chance that an animal seen flying is a mammal. This reasoning, like
the editor’s, generalizes from a percentage to an individual instance without considering
the actual circumstances (such as the possibility of non-mammals flying). Both arguments
assume a statistical likelihood and apply it to a specific case without adequate evidence,
making (a) a good parallel. Therefore, (a) is the correct answer. Option (b): Option (b)
presents a flawed reasoning similar to the editor’s, but it involves the rejection of a
specific case (acceptance of manuscripts) based on a general rule (acceptance rate). It
does not parallel the editor's statistical inference about the gender of the letter's author.
In (b), the argument dismisses the possibility of an accepted manuscript due to the low
acceptance rate, but this conclusion does not hinge on an erroneous statistical inference
as in the original passage. Therefore, (b) is not the correct answer. Option (c): Option (c)
infers that Howard, having taken Latin, is likely to be among the few students who did.
This reasoning does not mirror the editor’s error of overapplying a statistical fact. Here,
the conclusion is about Howard’s experience and the overall low number of Latin
students, but it doesn’t commit the same error of generalizing from percentages to an
individual case. The reasoning in (c) is more focused on individual circumstances than a
broad generalization. Thus, it is not parallel to the reasoning in the passage. Option (d):
Option (d) argues that because more than 95% of planes met standards, it is almost
certain that all large planes met the standards. While this is a flawed statistical inference,
it does not parallel the editor's reasoning in the passage. The editor incorrectly assumes
that a letter written by a woman professor is highly unlikely, while (d) makes a reasonable
assumption about the probability of a plane meeting standards. The reasoning in (d) is
less flawed in terms of statistical inference, so it is not the best parallel to the editor's
flawed reasoning.
4. (d). Reasoning Explanation: The passage argues that sunspot activity likely triggers
uprisings because sunspot activity correlates with positively charged ions, which are
known to affect people’s moods. The reasoning connects two events (sunspot activity and
uprisings) based on a common cause (charged ions). It assumes that the correlation

Page 8 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
between sunspots and uprisings is due to the influence of positively charged ions, linking
a cause (ions) to a specific effect (anxiety, leading to uprisings). The pattern involves
correlating two phenomena through a causal link. Option (a): Option (a) presents
reasoning based on a prediction involving birds' flight patterns, with the assumption that
birds are responding to a factor influencing events. While both options involve correlation,
the reasoning in (a) does not establish a causal link as strongly as the passage does. The
passage connects sunspot activity with uprisings through a specific cause (ions affecting
mood), while (a) relies on a less direct causal assumption about birds' flight patterns.
Therefore, (a) is not the correct answer. Option (b): Option (b) argues that Ridgeview
High School must have been a good school because three successful graduates came
from it. This reasoning makes an unwarranted leap from a specific outcome (successful
graduates) to a general cause (the quality of the school). While it’s a correlation, the
reasoning here is about quality, not a cause-effect relationship involving external factors
like ions in the passage. It is not a strong parallel to the passage's reasoning, which
directly connects sunspot activity with uprisings. Thus, (b) is incorrect. Option (c): Option
(c) argues that cold weather leads to higher fuel prices due to increased fuel usage, but
the reasoning does not involve the same kind of causal link seen in the passage. The
reasoning in (c) focuses on a direct cause-effect relationship (cold weather leads to higher
prices), which is more straightforward than the passage's more complex correlation
between sunspot activity and uprisings. The passage involves an indirect influence (ions),
making (c) a less direct match. Hence, (c) does not parallel the reasoning in the passage.
Option (d): Option (d) presents a similar pattern of reasoning to the passage. It argues
that the greater productivity of managers with corner offices is probably due to the
natural light they receive. The reasoning connects the observed effect (productivity) to a
potential cause (light exposure), much like the passage links uprisings to sunspot activity
through a causal intermediary (ions). Both arguments use correlation to infer causality,
making (d) the best parallel to the reasoning in the passage.
5. (d). Reasoning Explanation: The commissioner assumes that since the Amlec panel
was reasonable and fair, Judge Khalid, who was part of the panel, will also be reasonable
and fair in resolving the Simdon dispute. This reasoning is flawed because it applies a
characteristic of a group (the panel) to an individual (Judge Khalid) without justification.
Just because Khalid was part of a fair panel doesn’t mean he will apply the same qualities
in a different case. The reasoning incorrectly generalizes the qualities of a group member
to the individual. Option (a): Option (a) involves reasoning based on the idea that only
an elected member of the school board can act as its representative. This reasoning is
flawed because it assumes that Marcia Barthes must be on the list simply because she
presented it, without considering other possibilities. However, unlike the passage, it does
not incorrectly generalize a group characteristic (fairness of the panel) to an individual
(Judge Khalid). Therefore, (a) does not mirror the flaw in the original argument. Option
(b): Option (b) assumes that Alan Caldalf will be a good pediatrician because he likes
young children, which mirrors the flaw in the passage. The reasoning incorrectly
generalizes a characteristic (liking young children) to an individual’s suitability for a job,
just as the passage generalizes the fairness of a panel to an individual judge. Both make
unjustified assumptions based on group characteristics, making (b) a plausible parallel.
However, the reasoning in (d) is a better parallel. Option (c): Option (c) assumes that
because Jorge Diaz works at a music school known for its excellent conducting faculty, he
must be part of that faculty. This is similar to the error in the passage, but it is not an
exact match. The reasoning in (c) generalizes from a school’s reputation to an individual’s
role, which is different from applying a group characteristic (fairness of the panel) to an
individual (Judge Khalid). Thus, (c) does not mirror the reasoning flaw in the passage as
closely as (d). Option (d): Option (d) argues that Ula Borg must have sold fewer houses
last year because the overall number of houses sold by the company was lower. This
reasoning applies a general characteristic (lower sales by the company) to an individual
case (Ula Borg’s sales), similar to how the passage applies a group characteristic (the
fairness of the Amlec panel) to an individual (Judge Khalid). Both reasoning patterns
incorrectly assume that an individual will share the characteristics of a group, making (d)
the correct parallel to the reasoning flaw in the passage.

Page 9 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
6. (d). Reasoning Explanation: The argument assumes that because a single instance of
petting an animal lowers blood pressure for some people, owning a pet will universally
lower a person’s average blood pressure. This flawed reasoning is similar to option (d),
where riding in a boat for a few minutes is relaxing for some, so it is assumed that owning
a boat would make those people generally more relaxed. Both arguments incorrectly
generalize the effect of a single event to an ongoing condition for all affected individuals,
assuming the experience will translate to long-term or broader outcomes. Option (a):
This option discusses the impact of taking a single dose of a drug on a particular ailment
and incorrectly assumes that regular doses will prevent the ailment. While it is similar in
its flawed generalization, it does not parallel the idea of translating one isolated
experience (petting a pet) into a broad, ongoing effect (lowering blood pressure). The
reasoning in (a) assumes regular doses can prevent an ailment, but it lacks the specific
link to the same event in the original argument, making it a less fitting comparison.
Option (b): Option (b) suggests that because buying an automobile is expensive, people
should keep a car as long as possible. This argument lacks the same kind of flawed
reasoning seen in the original argument, as it does not make a direct inference about a
person's behaviour or condition based on a single event. The logic in (b) is about cost and
durability, while the original argument generalizes the effect of petting animals to the
continuous effect of owning one. Hence, (b) is not a close parallel. Option (c): This option
suggests that since some people find pruning houseplants enjoyable, they should get rid
of plants that require less frequent pruning. This is different from the flawed logic in the
original argument, which generalizes a singular event's effect to an ongoing one. While
both assume a connection between experience and behaviour, (c) focuses on personal
preferences rather than a generalization about health or physiological effects. It’s not a
strong parallel to the original argument's flawed reasoning. Option (d): This option
directly parallels the reasoning in the original argument. It assumes that because riding in
a boat is relaxing for some people, owning a boat would make those individuals generally
more relaxed. Just like the flawed reasoning in the original argument, this option assumes
that a specific, isolated experience (being relaxed on a boat) would result in a broader,
permanent change (being generally relaxed if owning a boat). This pattern of reasoning is
logically flawed in both cases, making (d) the most accurate parallel.
7. (b). Reasoning Explanation: The argument in the passage uses a rule to conclude that
anyone who prefers bland foods is not a gourmet cook, based on the assumption that all
gourmet cooks enjoy a wide variety of foods. This reasoning structure mirrors option (b),
which uses a rule about abstract paintings to infer that since no abstract paintings will be
auctioned, none of the paintings in the Huang Collection will be in the auction. Both
arguments apply a general rule (gourmet cooks like variety, abstract paintings are not
included) to make an inference about a specific situation. Option (a): This option
incorrectly assumes that the paintings in the Huang Collection are by a wide variety of
artists simply because the paintings being auctioned next week are from multiple artists.
The reasoning is about the collection's contents, but it does not use the same logic as the
original argument, which applies a rule about gourmet cooks to reach a specific
conclusion about someone's preferences. While both involve conclusions based on
categories, (a) lacks the same logical pattern of applying a rule to a specific case, making
it a poor comparison. Option (b): This option closely mirrors the reasoning in the original
passage. It uses the rule that only abstract paintings are in the Huang Collection and
applies it to the specific situation of the auction. Since no abstract paintings will be
auctioned, the conclusion is drawn that no paintings in the Huang Collection will be
auctioned. The reasoning is similarly based on applying a general rule to a specific
situation, making (b) the correct answer. Both arguments follow the same pattern of
reasoning about categories and applying them to individual cases. Option (c): In this
option, the argument states that no painting by Roué is a superb work of art, based on the
rule that all paintings in the Huang Collection are superb. While this follows a logical
structure, it doesn’t resemble the reasoning in the original argument. The original
argument applies a category-based rule (gourmet cooks enjoy variety) to conclude
something about an individual's preference, whereas (c) makes an inference based on the
specific content of the Huang Collection. The lack of a rule about preferences in (c) makes
it a less accurate comparison. Option (d): This option compares postimpressionist and

Page 10 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
pop art paintings in the Huang Collection, suggesting that because pop art paintings won’t
be auctioned, none of the paintings being auctioned are pop art. While the structure is
somewhat similar to the original argument, it doesn’t involve a categorical rule like the
one about gourmet cooks and their preferences. Instead, it draws a conclusion based on
the types of paintings in the collection. This lack of a broader, preference-based rule
makes (d) a less suitable parallel to the original argument.
8. (a). Reasoning Explanation: The argument in the passage asserts that because reptiles
are air-breathing vertebrates with ossified skeletons, alligators must also share these
characteristics. This reasoning is based on a category (reptiles) that applies to a specific
example (alligators). Option (a) follows a similar reasoning pattern, stating that because
green plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, grass must also follow this
pattern. Both arguments generalize a property of a larger category (reptiles, plants) to an
individual example (alligators, grass), making the structure of reasoning analogous.
Option (a): This option follows the same logical structure as the original argument. It
starts by stating a general property about green plants and applies it to a specific case,
grass. Similarly, the original argument starts with a general characteristic of reptiles and
applies it to alligators. The reasoning in both cases is based on categorizing something
under a broader class and assuming that specific instances must share the same
properties. This makes (a) the most appropriate parallel. Option (b): This option
introduces an assumption about red butterflies being poisonous to birds, which is specific
to certain butterflies and not a general rule about all butterflies. While it makes a
generalization, it doesn’t follow the same pattern of reasoning as the original argument,
which infers the characteristics of a specific example (alligators) based on a broader
category (reptiles). This difference makes (b) an incorrect parallel to the original
reasoning. Option (c): In this option, the reasoning makes an assumption about the
knowledge provided by Virginia Woolf’s book, A Room of One’s Own, claiming it must offer
empirical knowledge. This is a fallacious assumption because the book’s content is not
primarily empirical. This argument does not follow the same pattern as the original one,
which uses the categorization of reptiles to make a straightforward, logical conclusion
about a specific example. The reasoning in (c) is more speculative and doesn’t match the
pattern of applying a category to a specific instance. Option (d): This option introduces
an example of someone having seen every film by a particular director, concluding that
they must have seen a specific film. The reasoning in this case is about direct experience
and does not parallel the original argument about reptiles and alligators. The argument
about films doesn’t generalize properties from a category (all films by a director) to a
specific example (a particular film). Instead, it focuses on individual experience, which
makes (d) a weaker comparison to the original argument’s logical pattern.
9. (c). Reasoning Explanation: The argument in the passage assumes that because most
bicyclists with lights are over 18, most bicyclists with lights are also in the 18-and-over
category. This flawed reasoning assumes a general trend applies universally. Option (c)
exhibits similar flawed reasoning by concluding that most of the Conservative party’s
mailing list members must have voted, based on the correlation between voting
behaviour and being on the list. Both arguments make faulty inferences from trends,
assuming a trend for a subgroup applies universally to individuals within that subgroup.
Option (a): This option discusses the purchase of gasoline and groceries and concludes
that fewer people buy gasoline and groceries on the same day. The reasoning here is
based on different habits rather than a general correlation, so it doesn’t parallel the
original argument’s flaw, which assumes that a trend applies to all members of a group.
The connection between gasoline purchases and grocery shopping is not based on a
common trait like being over 18, making (a) a poor match. Option (b): Option (b)
discusses the availability of videos and its correlation with increased book lending. While
it assumes causality based on correlation, it doesn’t rely on the same flawed assumption
that a trend applies to all members of a group (as in the original argument). The
reasoning in (b) is about causality, while the original argument relies on an assumption
about age and bicycle lights. Hence, (b) does not match the pattern of reasoning in the
original passage. Option (c): This option directly mirrors the flawed reasoning in the
original argument. It assumes that because most people on the Conservative mailing list
voted, the trend applies to all members of the list. This reasoning is similar to the one in

Page 11 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
the original passage, which assumes that most bicyclists with lights are over 18, so those
with lights must be in the 18-and-over category. Both arguments fail by making broad
generalizations about subgroups based on trends. Therefore, (c) is the correct answer.
Option (d): This option discusses the presence of fire trucks in towns and the assumption
that Sheldon must have at least two fire trucks because it has a pool. While this reasoning
does follow a correlation, it does not make the same flawed assumption about trends
within subgroups that the original argument does. The original argument assumes that
the trend applies to all individuals in a group, whereas (d) discusses a specific condition
(having a pool) and its possible causes. Thus, (d) is not a close parallel.
10. (b). Reasoning Explanation: The argument asserts that Gerald’s inability to distinguish
between green and brown makes him red/green colour-blind. This reasoning assumes that
a single symptom is sufficient to diagnose a condition. Option (b) follows a similar
reasoning structure, asserting that since Mary has lost her sense of smell, she must be
suffering from sinusitis. Both arguments jump to a conclusion about a condition based on
a specific symptom, assuming that the symptom is unique to the condition. Option (a):
This option makes a direct connection between being fair-skinned and suffering from
sunburn, assuming that fair-skinned individuals are guaranteed to suffer from sunburn.
While it resembles the original argument’s pattern of reasoning, it doesn’t establish the
same kind of cause-effect relationship based solely on a symptom. The reasoning in (a) is
about a broader tendency, while the original argument about colour-blindness and
Gerald’s symptoms makes a more direct, specific link. Hence, (a) is a less fitting
comparison. Option (b): Option (b) closely parallels the reasoning in the original
argument. It assumes that since Mary has lost her sense of smell, she must have sinusitis,
similar to how the original argument concludes that Gerald is colour-blind based on his
inability to distinguish between green and brown. Both conclusions are based on the
presence of a specific symptom, making (b) the correct answer. The reasoning in both
cases involves assuming a condition based solely on one symptom, leading to a general
diagnosis. Option (c): In this option, the reasoning argues that Jean is not colour-blind
because she is a blood donor. This is an example of a more direct negation of a condition
rather than assuming it based on a symptom. Unlike the original argument, which directly
associates a symptom with a condition, (c) discusses a lack of the condition based on an
external factor. This reasoning pattern is quite different from the original argument,
making it an incorrect parallel. Option (d): This option involves colour-blindness as a
disqualification for being an airline pilot, assuming that being colour-blind directly
prevents one from being a pilot. While this is a diagnosis, it does not rely on the same
reasoning as the original argument. The original argument assumes a single symptom
leads to a diagnosis of a condition (colour-blindness), whereas (d) discusses a qualification
requirement. The reasoning in (d) is more about eligibility, not diagnosis, making it a
weaker comparison to the original argument.
11. (a). Reasoning Explanation: The argument states that if Max were guilty, he would not
ask the police to investigate, but since he did, he must not be guilty. This reasoning
follows a pattern of denying the consequent, where the conclusion is based on the
negation of a hypothetical premise. The reasoning is similar to saying that if something
were true, a particular outcome would occur, and the absence of that outcome negates
the initial truth. Option (a): This option mirrors the structure of the argument by
presenting a conditional statement: "If Lucille were in the next room, I would not be able
to see her." The conclusion that Lucille is not in the next room is drawn from the fact that
the speaker can see her. This follows a similar pattern to the original argument, where the
absence of a specific outcome (seeing Lucille) is used to deny the truth of the conditional
premise. The reasoning aligns with the structure of denying the consequent. Option (b):
This option incorrectly assumes that Sam’s vacation location (Alaska or the Bahamas)
determines his wealth. The reasoning does not deny the consequent or follow a pattern of
negation. Instead, it makes a flawed assumption about Sam’s financial status based on
where he chooses to spend his vacation. This reasoning is not parallel to the one in the
passage, which involves denying the consequent, not making an assumption about a
causal relationship. Option (c): This option argues that Joe’s lack of desire to learn to ski
means he must be over 40. While it presents a conditional reasoning structure, it doesn't
follow the pattern of denying the consequent. Instead, it makes an assumption that not

Page 12 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
wanting to ski directly correlates with being over 40, which does not mirror the reasoning
in the passage. The original argument negates the consequence to assert the opposite,
but this option asserts an illogical cause-effect relationship. Option (d): This option does
not mirror the passage’s reasoning. The claim that Mark is not a good cook based on his
putting cinnamon in chili does not follow the same logical structure. The reasoning in the
passage negates a consequence to prove the absence of guilt, but in this case, the
presence of cinnamon in chili does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that Mark is a
bad cook. The reasoning here is more about assuming a direct causality, which does not
align with the passage's pattern.
12. (c). Reasoning Explanation: The argument suggests that abundant rain in sub-Saharan
Africa promotes hurricane formation due to high atmospheric winds. However, the
conclusion is flawed because it assumes a direct cause-and-effect relationship without
considering other variables. The reasoning parallels situations where correlation is
confused with causation. Option (a): This option commits a different flaw, conflating
correlation with causation. It suggests that vigorous exercise leads to better health, but
this does not directly follow the same pattern as the original argument. The original
argument implies a direct cause-and-effect relationship between rainfall and hurricanes
without ruling out other factors. Here, the reasoning assumes exercise correlates with
health, but it doesn't demonstrate a causal link. The flaw is not the same, making (a)
incorrect. Option (b): This option argues that longer city blocks are more dangerous
because cars drive faster on them. While it assumes a relationship between block length
and danger, it does not make the same causal leap as the original argument. The original
reasoning attributes hurricane formation solely to rainfall, ignoring other contributing
factors. In contrast, (b) presents a reasonable assumption about danger based on speed,
making the flaw different from that in the original argument. Option (c): This option
parallels the reasoning in the passage closely by assuming that playing competitive sports
must enhance entrepreneurial ability simply because there is a correlation between the
two. The argument in the passage assumes that abundant rainfall causes hurricanes,
similarly inferring causation from correlation. Both arguments ignore other potential
contributing factors and confuse correlation with causation, making this option the correct
parallel. Option (d): This option argues that chicory plant blossoms must open in the
dark because they close in full sun. While this is a flawed assumption, it does not parallel
the original argument’s reasoning. The passage assumes a causation between rainfall and
hurricanes, while (d) presents a false assumption about the plant’s behaviour in darkness.
The reasoning here is about behaviour in different conditions, which doesn't align with the
causal flaw in the original argument.
13. (d). Reasoning Explanation: The argument states that while all contemporary
advertising tries to persuade, only a small portion is morally reprehensible. This leads to
the conclusion that some attempts at persuasion can be morally reprehensible. The logic
involves generalizing a small portion to the whole, which is a flaw based on assuming that
a part must reflect the whole. Option (a): This option commits a different flaw, assuming
that no chemicals used for cleaning the Sistine Chapel will affect the dyes. It draws a
conclusion about the restoration of Michelangelo’s colours without considering any
exceptions or different methods. This does not parallel the generalization made in the
original argument. The original argument generalizes about attempts at persuasion based
on a small portion being morally reprehensible, whereas this option asserts certainty
about the outcome without a similar flaw. Option (b): This option makes a similar error in
reasoning. It suggests that because not all operational tracking studies are reliable, some
must be unreliable. However, this generalizes about the reliability of all studies based on
a portion being unreliable, paralleling the generalization in the passage. Both arguments
make an unjustified leap from a small part of a category to a conclusion about the entire
category, making (b) a reasonable parallel. Option (c): This option makes a faulty
conclusion about what constitutes a good manager. It incorrectly generalizes from the fact
that some managers fail to make decisions based on data. However, this is a different
logical flaw. The reasoning in the original argument generalizes the part (morally
reprehensible persuasion) to the whole, while (c) wrongly suggests that failure to make
decisions equates to being a bad manager. The reasoning is not directly comparable.
Option (d): This option correctly parallels the reasoning in the passage. It suggests that

Page 13 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
since some short poems are thematically pluralistic, all short poems are pluralistic. Like
the original argument, it generalizes from a small part (some short poems) to the whole
(all short poems). This reasoning is similar because it wrongly assumes that a
characteristic of a portion applies to the entire category.
14. (d). Reasoning Explanation: Student Y's statement assumes that if you meet one
condition (submitting a term paper), you can avoid the consequence of failing the course.
The flaw is in assuming that fulfilling one requirement guarantees success, ignoring other
possible conditions. This reflects a misunderstanding of the necessary conditions for
success. Option (a): This option assumes that serving paella with turmeric instead of
saffron automatically makes it authentic. It incorrectly applies one aspect of authenticity
(the ingredient) without considering other necessary factors. Like student Y’s reasoning, it
simplifies a complex issue by assuming one condition is sufficient, which is a flaw, but the
context is different. Therefore, this option is not a parallel reasoning. Option (b): This
option assumes that a native fisher is always worth hiring as a guide, without considering
other factors that might make someone unqualified. It mirrors the reasoning in student Y's
statement by taking a single qualification (being a native fisher) as sufficient to make
someone a good guide. However, it is still different because the original argument is more
focused on a direct consequence, while this is a more general claim. Option (c): This
option suggests that bowling over 200 points per game qualifies someone to be a
professional bowler. Like student Y’s reasoning, it makes an error by assuming that
meeting one condition (bowling over 200 points) guarantees success in a different domain
(becoming a professional). Both involve overly simplistic reasoning about sufficient
conditions, making it a good parallel to the original flaw. Option (d): This option involves
assuming that if an engineer can solve an equation in a reasonable time, they will receive
a license. It commits the same logical flaw as student Y’s remark by suggesting that
fulfilling one condition guarantees the outcome (getting a license). This matches the flaw
in student Y’s reasoning, making (d) the correct answer.
15. (d). Reasoning Explanation: The argument assumes that because a team would lose if
their star player is injured, the fact that the team won means the player must have
played. This reasoning follows a denial of the antecedent pattern, where the outcome
(winning) negates the possibility of the antecedent (star player injury). Option (a): This
option suggests that green spots on the feet rule out borosis. The reasoning here denies a
possible condition (the patient having borosis) based on the presence of a different
symptom (green spots). It doesn’t parallel the structure of the original argument, which
assumes a specific outcome (team winning) and denies the antecedent (star player being
injured), making it an incorrect answer. Option (b): This option correctly parallels the
original argument by asserting that if the frost comes late, the farmer must have a good
crop. It assumes that a specific condition (late frost) ensures a specific outcome (good
crop). This mirrors the reasoning in the original argument, where a certain outcome (team
winning) implies a specific cause (star player playing). Option (c): This option follows a
correct pattern by assuming that receiving an A in one part of the course guarantees an A
in the entire course. While it is a flawed reasoning, it doesn’t mirror the pattern in the
original argument, which denies the antecedent based on the outcome. This makes (c) a
reasonable but incorrect parallel. Option (d): This option correctly parallels the logic of
the original argument. It assumes that not being expelled from driving school means Pete
must not have had an auto accident, which mirrors the pattern of reasoning in the original
argument. Both deny the antecedent based on the outcome, making (d) the correct
parallel.
16. (c). Reasoning Explanation: The politician’s reasoning is flawed because they assume
that just because the bay got polluted when the public did not have access, public access
will not cause pollution when granted. This ignores other potential causes of pollution and
falsely assumes the absence of public access was the sole reason for pollution. The flawed
reasoning is an assumption about cause and effect without sufficient evidence to prove
the argument. Option (a): This option involves a flawed assumption about cause and
effect, but it is different from the politician’s reasoning. Here, the argument assumes that
the tide must be higher if there had been a full moon. However, the reasoning does not
match the politician's flaw, which involves assuming public access won't affect pollution
based on an incorrect conclusion from a previous situation. This option incorrectly

Page 14 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
assumes that no other factors are at play, but it doesn't parallel the same flawed logic as
the politician's argument. Option (b): This option introduces a causal connection
between conspicuous spending and being the thief, which is not analogous to the
politician’s flawed reasoning. The politician erroneously assumes the absence of public
access as the cause of pollution, whereas this option assumes spending behaviour is
directly tied to criminal activity. Both have flaws in their reasoning, but this choice does
not parallel the reasoning about access and pollution. The logic here is about an
assumption of identity based on behaviour, not a flawed cause-effect argument. Option
(c): This option is the best parallel to the politician’s reasoning. The argument assumes
that allowing violent prisoners to mix will prevent violence, when previous evidence
suggests the opposite. Just as the politician falsely assumes that public access won't
cause pollution, this reasoning assumes that the removal of a restrictive measure will
automatically lead to an expected outcome. In both cases, there’s an incorrect
assumption about the effects of changing conditions without properly considering the
complexity of the situation. Option (d): This option introduces a different type of
reasoning: the conclusion is about the direct outcome of passing the written test for a
license. While there is a connection between passing a test and receiving a license, this is
not an example of the same flaw in reasoning. The politician’s argument is about a
change in access, while this option is about a concrete, step-based process. The reasoning
here doesn't involve a flawed assumption of cause and effect, making it an incorrect
choice.
17. (a). Reasoning Explanation: The argument is based on the reasoning that Dolores’
skills in securing financial support, along with her ability to avoid alienating volunteers,
make her a better choice to direct the program than Victor. The reasoning involves a
comparison of two individuals' characteristics and how those characteristics benefit the
program. It identifies specific qualities that contribute to a successful outcome, showing
how one choice is more beneficial than the other. Option (a): This option parallels the
original reasoning by comparing the advantages of two transportation methods: the bus
and subway. The reasoning involves identifying factors (e.g., convenience of bus stops
and directness to school) that make the bus a better choice for Dominique. Just like
Dolores is better at managing finances and volunteers, the bus provides more benefits for
Dominique. The underlying logic compares two alternatives and identifies the one that
best suits the person's needs, making it the closest parallel. Option (b): This option
compares travel methods but focuses on cost as the deciding factor. While both the
argument about Dolores and this option consider two alternatives, the focus here is on
cost-effectiveness, whereas the original argument is about skills and personal traits. The
reasoning in this option does not reflect the comparison of personal qualities and how
they impact outcomes, making it an incorrect choice for the parallel reasoning. Option
(c): This option provides reasoning based on traffic conditions, comparing two methods of
travel based on speed. Although it involves comparing two alternatives, the basis of
comparison is not personal traits or qualities, but external factors like traffic. The original
argument about Dolores focuses on individual abilities that impact the program's success,
while this option is concerned with practical considerations related to travel time. This
makes (c) an inappropriate parallel. Option (d): While this option discusses financial
benefit based on travel choices, it compares two alternatives based on financial costs, not
on personal attributes like the comparison between Dolores and Victor. The reasoning in
the original passage focuses on personal traits that affect the outcome, while (d) focuses
on the comparison of cost-benefit analysis. The comparison here is less aligned with the
reasoning in the passage, which makes it an incorrect choice.
18. (c). Reasoning Explanation: The original argument wrongly concludes that all plants in
the garden must be tall, simply because all the tulips in the garden are tall. The faulty
reasoning arises from assuming that the only plants in the garden are tulips, which does
not account for the possibility of other plants being in the garden. The reasoning
incorrectly assumes that because one type of plant is tall, all plants must be tall. Option
(a): This option commits a similar mistake, assuming that all the dogs at a show must be
black because the only dogs were black poodles. This is similar to the original argument,
which generalizes from a specific case (tall tulips) to an entire category (all plants). The
reasoning here makes an overgeneralization based on incomplete information, which

Page 15 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
mirrors the flawed logic in the original argument. Option (b): This option assumes that
because all buildings on a block are tall, all office buildings must be tall, which appears to
be a reasonable conclusion given the information. However, it does not suffer from the
same flaw as the original argument, where it incorrectly concludes that all plants must be
tall based on the tulips. In this case, the argument does not overgeneralize in the same
way, as it maintains a clear distinction between different types of buildings, making it a
weaker parallel. Option (c): This option closely parallels the original argument’s flaw,
concluding that all primates are small because the only gorillas were small. The reasoning
assumes that because one species of primates is small, all primates must be small, just as
the original argument assumed all plants must be tall because the tulips were tall. Both
rely on an illogical leap from one category to another without considering that other
species or categories may exist. Therefore, this option represents the same faulty
reasoning. Option (d): This option argues that none of the fruit is ripe because the only
fruit in the kitchen was unripe pears. The reasoning is slightly different from the original
argument because it uses the fact that pears are unripe to conclude that there is no ripe
fruit. However, the original argument is about generalizing plant height, not about
excluding all other possibilities based on one example. Thus, the reasoning in this option
does not fully mirror the flaw of generalization as seen in the original argument.
19. (b). Reasoning Explanation: The argument about Jamison’s activities concludes that
new evidence must have come to light to definitively prove Jamison’s involvement in the
fraud, after earlier evidence was insufficient. The reasoning involves shifting from an
inconclusive situation to a conclusive one based on newly revealed information. This
pattern parallels situations where new facts definitively resolve ambiguity that could not
be settled with prior evidence. Option (a): This option talks about an assumption
regarding property ownership. However, the reasoning here is based on a list, not new
evidence coming to light. It lacks the pattern of shifting from incomplete to complete
evidence, making it a poor parallel to the reasoning in the original argument about
Jamison. Option (b): This option mirrors the reasoning in the original argument. It asserts
that Turner could not have taken her usual train because she was seen in Nantes early,
and the argument concludes based on new information (her presence in Nantes) that she
could not have been on the train. This is similar to the way the original argument uses
new evidence to conclusively prove Jamison's involvement, making this the best parallel
reasoning. Option (c): This option involves a different type of reasoning, focusing on the
potential for lying based on a certain set of facts. While both arguments deal with proving
something definitively, the reasoning in this option is about personal dishonesty and
memory, not about shifting from insufficient evidence to definitive proof. This makes it a
less accurate parallel to the original argument. Option (d): This option involves
reasoning based on the library cancellation notices. While it concludes that Waugh must
have known about the cancellation, it does not exhibit the same shift from incomplete to
complete evidence. It assumes Waugh had access to the information in the library, rather
than presenting new, previously unavailable evidence to solve a mystery. Thus, this
option does not parallel the original reasoning as closely as (b).
20. (a). Reasoning Explanation: The argument in the passage criticizes the practice of
executives setting their own salaries, as board members—who are also executives—stand
to benefit from inflated salary benchmarks. The reasoning is that those making the
decisions are biased, benefiting themselves, which undermines the expected outcome of
setting fair salaries. Option (a): This option parallels the argument in the passage
because it involves a similar situation of biased decision-making. If physicians who are not
directly involved in a malpractice suit play a major role in determining damages, they may
be biased towards lower damages to avoid similar outcomes in their own cases. This
creates a conflict of interest, just like executives deciding their own salaries. The criticism
highlights the issue of biased decision-making that benefits the decision-makers, which is
the same flaw identified in the original argument. Option (b): This option involves a
scenario where financial officers might intentionally cause a reduction in their pay
packages to avoid perceived self-interest, but the criticism here is more about potential
misunderstandings or the optics of pay, rather than the fundamental issue of decision-
makers benefiting themselves. This lacks the clear conflict of interest highlighted in the
original passage, making it less analogous to the reasoning in the passage. Option (c):

Page 16 | 17
Critical Reasoning – Analogous Reasoning Paragraph Based Questions – 1 (C)
This option deals with politicians hiring their own family members, which could indeed
lead to biases. However, the issue here is not about biased decision-making that directly
benefits the decision-makers, but more about the perception of nepotism. The original
argument focuses specifically on a bias that directly benefits the decision-makers in
setting their own salaries, which makes this option a less perfect parallel. Option (d):
While this option does discuss biased decision-making, it introduces the idea of shared
resources in the business context, which is different from the personal financial benefit
derived from the decisions in the original argument. The reasoning in this option does not
focus on an individual’s personal benefit from their own decisions, which is central to the
original argument. Therefore, it doesn't align as closely with the reasoning in the passage.

Page 17 | 17