Parallel reasoning
⏱ ~3-min readAceMark Guide
What this topic is really about
The original argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent by concluding the cause from the effect. Option B perfectly mirrors this invalid logical structure. Option A is incorrect because it represents a valid deductive argument (modus ponens) rather than the flawed reasoning shown in the prompt.
The original argument incorrectly reverses a valid conditional chain to conclude that the final category must belong to the first. Option A perfectly mirrors this logical flaw by concluding that all animals are cats. Option B is incorrect because it represents a valid deductive argument.
See the mechanism
The original argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent by concluding the cause from the effect. A diagram for this topic isn't available yet — the worked example below walks the same reasoning step by step.
An exam-style question, fully explained
Parallel reasoning: "If it rains, the picnic is cancelled. The picnic was cancelled. So it rained." Which is structurally similar?
- Identify what the question tests: Parallel reasoning: "If it rains, the picnic is cancelled..
- The original argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent by concluding the cause from the effect.
- Option B perfectly mirrors this invalid logical structure.
- Option A is incorrect because it represents a valid deductive argument (modus ponens) rather than the flawed reasoning shown in the prompt.
Traps the examiner sets
- Option A is incorrect because it represents a valid deductive argument (modus ponens) rather than the flawed reasoning shown in the prompt.
- Option B is incorrect because it represents a valid deductive argument.
Test your recall
Answer each from memory — you'll see instantly whether you're right and why.
Run a focused 10-question mini-mock on Parallel reasoning and see it stick.
Practice more of this topic →