If we digram this argument, we have "wealth inequality - >threatens democracy" as the conclusion.
The support for this conclusion is "wealth - >political power and true democracy - >equal distribution of power"
At first glance, it doesn't appear that these statements link up to get us the conclusion, but if we take the contrapositive of the second premise and put things back together, we get "wealth - >political power for wealthy individuals (unequal distribution of power) - >not true democracy (threatens democracy). Because this is a parallel question, we're looking for an answer choice that mimics this basic structure.
Also, note that there aren't any quantifiers or compound statements in this stimulus, so any answer choice that has a quantifier and/or a compound statement can be eliminated.
(A) says, "Consumer culture and an emphasis on technological innovation are a dangerous combination, since together they are uncontrollable and lead to irrational excess."
The fact that (A) has a compound statement (using the word "and") means we can get rid of this choice right away.
(B) says, "If Sara went to the bookstore every time her pocket was full, Sara would never have enough money to cover her living expenses, since books are her love and they are getting very expensive."
The problem with (B) is that it's an invalid argument. We don't have any idea what Sara's living expenses are, how many money she has, or whether she actually purchases the books, so this argument doesn't work. Thus, it's out.
(C) says, "It is very difficult to write a successful science fiction novel that is set in the past, since historical fiction depends on historical accuracy, whereas science fiction does not."
Like (B), (C) is also an invalid argument. Historical fiction depends on historical accuracy, but this doesn't matter since the goal is to write science fiction. Thus, (C) is out.
(D) says, "Honesty is important in maintaining friendships. But sometimes honesty can lead to arguments, so it is difficult to predict the effect a particular honest act will have on a friendship."
(D) doesn't really have a conclusion. Additionally, there's a quantifier in this answer choice ("some"), so we can get rid of it.
(E) says, "Repeated encroachments on one's leisure time by a demanding job interfere with the requirements of good health. The reason is that good health depends on regular moderate exercise, but adequate leisure time is essential to regular exercise."
(E) is a valid argument, and it parallels the diagram we made for the stimulus nicely.
Good health - >regular moderate exercise - >adequate leisure time
Conclusion: encroachments on leisure time by demanding job - > interfere with good health
Like the stimulus, we have a transitive structure with three terms connected together. Also, like the stimulus, there is some work required for using the contrapositive to get thinks linked together well, so (E) parallels the stimulus well and is the correct answer choice.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!
