@erojas Of course! Let's break down the stimulus first.
"In Sheldon most bicyclists aged 18 and over have lights on their bicycles, . . .
P1: B 18+-most-LB
. . . whereas most bicyclists under the age of 18 do not."
P2: B < 18-most-not LB
"It follows that in Sheldon most bicyclists who have lights on their bicycles are at least 18 years old."
C: LB-most-B > 18
This argument makes no sense. We cannot make any valid deductions from two most statements unless they have the left side in common, which is not the case here (18+ v. <18).
The conclusion here is effectively a reversal of our first premise but we know that when you reverse "most" it becomes "some".
However, our conclusion here is "most" as opposed to "some".
Now let's take a look at (C):
"Most of the residents of Sheldon who voted in the last election are on the Conservative party's mailing list, . . . "
P1: VLE-most-CPML
. . . whereas most of Sheldon's residents who did not vote are not on the list."
P2: not VLE-most-not CPML
"It follows that most of the residents of Sheldon on the Conservative party's mailing list voted in the last election."
C: CPML-most-VLE
Notice that in (C), just as we saw in the stimulus, the conclusion is effectively a reversal of the first premise but "most" stays "most" instead of becoming "some".
So (C) would be the correct answer as it exhibits the pattern of flawed reasoning most similar to that found in the stimulus.
Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
