PrepLattice is an independent test-preparation service and is not affiliated with or endorsed by GMAC, the organization that administers the GMAT. GMAT and GMAT Focus are trademarks of GMAC, used here only to name the exam this question is designed to prepare you for.
Every pastry that the Northgate Bakery prepares with its almond-paste filling earns a top score from the regional dessert judges. The lemon tart earned a top score from the regional dessert judges. Therefore, the lemon tart must have been prepared with the almond-paste filling.
Which of the following arguments uses reasoning most similar to the reasoning in the argument above?
Five fresh questions every day, your progress tracked, every miss explained. Free with an account.
Correct answer
B
Parallel reasoning. Strip away the topic and describe only the logical skeleton, then find the choice whose skeleton matches.
The stem's skeleton is: every item with feature A gets result B; this item got result B; therefore this item has feature A. In plain terms, the argument observes the result and works backward to claim the cause. This is a recognizable invalid move: a top score can come from any of several recipes, so a top score does not prove the almond-paste filling was used. To match, a choice must (1) open with a universal rule ('every'/'all', not 'most'), (2) note that a specific item shows the result, and (3) conclude that the item therefore has the feature, reasoning backward from result to cause.
(B) is the match. Every Bramford winner is released before December (universal rule, feature to result); the Caldwell mystery was released before December (it shows the result); therefore it is a Bramford winner (concludes the feature, reasoning backward). The same backward, result-to-cause move with the same universal rule. The answer is (B).
(A) is wrong because its direction is reversed: it confirms the starting condition (Priya finished the program) and then draws the guaranteed result. That is valid reasoning forward from cause to result, the opposite of the stem's backward move.
(C) is the closest near-miss. It reasons backward from result to cause just like the stem, which makes it tempting, but its opening rule says 'most,' not 'every.' The stem's rule is universal, so (C) is one quantifier off and the structures do not line up.
(D) is wrong because it negates the opening condition (the garden is not watered daily) and predicts the result fails. The stem never negates anything; it affirms a result and infers a cause. Different pattern.
(E) is wrong because, despite its similar universal-rule surface, it confirms the starting condition (the reports were approved before noon) and then states the guaranteed result (they were filed today). Like (A), it runs forward from condition to result, while the stem runs backward.
The quickest reliable approach: first sort by validity. The stem is invalid, so eliminate the valid forward arguments (A and E). Among the remaining invalid choices, keep only the one that both reads backward and uses a universal rule: D negates rather than reading backward, and C uses 'most' rather than 'every,' leaving (B).
Pick the theme that suits how you work. You can change it anytime.