Each new car in the lot at Rollway Motors costs more than $18,000. Any car in their lot that is ten or more years old...

on December 31 at 04:02AM

C

Why is C right if it does not have equivalent value statements as the passage? How do you equate "Each new car in the lot at Rollway Motors costs more than $18,000" to No apartment above the fourth floor has more than two bedrooms or "No new care costs less than $18k? The first statements guaranties that every new car price is greater than 18k and does not leave open the possibility of a new car costing exactly $18K. the passage does not say is is equal to or greater than $18k it says that it's greater than $18k. The second statement, however, leaves open that possibility. That is why I crossed out this answer. Although the balcony variable in D is a throw-off, I the structure of the argument is still the same and the value statements match.

1 Reply

Shunhe on January 1 at 03:18AM

Hi @tomgbean,

In this question, we're looking for parallel logical reasoning, and so the exact fulfillment of a certain condition (such as whether something equals something or is greater than) isn't as important. It may be a tie-breaker if two answers are otherwise the same, but in this case, (C) is the only one that exhibits parallel reasoning. Let's diagram them and find out why. First, the stimulus:

New - > >$18k
>10 yrs - > <$5k

Conclusion:
$5-$18k - > Used, <10 yrs

We can see here that the general structure is:

A - > B
C - > D

~B & ~D - > ~A & ~C

And this is the same pattern used in (C):

Above 4th floor - > >=3 bedrooms
Below 4th floor - > >2 bedrooms

2 bedrooms - > 4th floor

But in (D), the logical structure is different:

Above 4th floor - > <=2 bedrooms
Balcony - > 3 bedrooms

Conclusion: Balcony - > 4th floor or lower

And here it's

A - > B
C - > ~B

C - > ~B - > ~A

Which is valid reasoning, but not parallel to the kind used in the argument. Hope this helps, feel free to ask any further clarifying questions.