Question

If we reduce the salaries of our employees, then profits will increase by 35 percent. Because we must increase our profits, it is clear that employee salaries must be reduced. Which of the following most closely parallels the reasoning used in the argument above?

• A. If I eat less food, I will lose weight. Since I started skipping breakfast, I have lost ten pounds.
• B. If I work four more hours each week, I will earn enough money to afford a new hobby. Because I would like a new hobby, I will collect coins.
• C. If god does not exist, then there is no basis for morality. Because some actions are morally wrong, God must exist.
• D. If there is an economic recession, then salaries will be reduced. Because salaries are not decreasing, there is not an economic recession.
• E. If there were more commercials, the number of television watchers would decline. Because the number of television watchers should be reduced, the number of commercials should be increased.

Hint:

In Parallel Reasoning questions, abstract the argument's structure using letters (A, B, C). Identify the premises and conclusion. Note if the reasoning is valid or flawed. Then, apply the same letter abstraction to each answer choice to find the one that matches perfectly.

Answer 1

Answer: (E)

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This is a "Parallel Reasoning" question. We must first identify the logical structure of the original argument, including any flaws, and then find an answer choice with the exact same structure.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Structure of the Original Argument: The argument has the following form:

Premise 1: If A, then B. (If we reduce salaries (A), then profits will increase (B).)
Premise 2: We must have B. (We must increase profits (B).)
Conclusion: Therefore, we must do A. (Salaries must be reduced (A).)
This is a logical fallacy known as "Affirming the Consequent." The argument incorrectly assumes that because A is one way to get to B, it is the \textit{only} way to get to B. There could be other ways to increase profits besides cutting salaries.
Analyzing the Options for the Same Flawed Structure (If A, then B. B, therefore A):

(A) Structure: If A, then B. A happened, so B happened. This is valid reasoning (Modus Ponens), not the flaw we are looking for.
(B) Structure: If A, then B. I want B, so I will do C. This reasoning is disconnected and does not match.
(C) Structure: If not A, then not B. B exists, therefore A must exist. This is a different logical form (a valid Modus Tollens argument, but phrased differently).
(D) Structure: If A, then B. Not B, therefore not A. This is valid reasoning (Modus Tollens), not the flaw we're looking for.
(E) Structure: - If A, then B. (If there were more commercials (A), the number of watchers would decline (B).) - We must have B. (The number of watchers should be reduced (B).) - Therefore, we must do A. (The number of commercials should be increased (A).) This perfectly matches the flawed "Affirming the Consequent" structure of the original argument.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The original argument uses the flawed logical structure: If A then B; B is true; Therefore A is true. Option (E) is the only answer choice that replicates this exact fallacy.