by uhdang Mon May 11, 2015 4:27 am
I tend to tackle Parallel reasoning a bit mechanically although I do look for parallel ways in terms of meaning. If anyone could evaluate the approach and point out any weaknesses, I would appreciate it.
Looking at stimulus, I notice three noticeable elements:
- "Because of A, B happened" : Cause and Effect relationship
- Relationship bewteen cause and effect is conflicting. One has affected the other in a negated way.
- Scope doesn’t match: “availability” and “sales”
Now, let's see what matches what.
A)
- “Because” : Cause and Effect relationship (Check)
- Rather than stating the negated state of another element, it brings in the alternative (machine) : (No check)
- “cost” and “usage” matches (Check)
>> Not matching perfectly. Out.
B)
- “Because”: Cause and Effect (Check)
- Conflicting relationship doesn’t happen. Rather, they go along with each other. (No check)
- “variety” and “quality.” Different scope compared (Check)
>> Not matching perfectly. Out.
C)
- “Because”: Cause and Effect (Check)
- Because of one positive, one negative occurs. (Check)
- “entering new brand” and “consumption reduced” - Scope difference. (Check)
>> Matching.
D)
- “Because” (Check)
- Negative relationship (No Check)
- Scope difference? Stay on homework. (No check)
>> Not matching. Out.
E)
- “Because” (Check)
- Negative relationship? “Because neither had something, neither could do something” Nope. Positive relationship. (No Check)
- Scope difference? Nope. Stay on the same scope. (No check)
The answer is C)
"Fun"