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.
If a vendor is on the city's preferred list, then that vendor has passed an independent financial audit. Greenline Logistics has not passed an independent financial audit. It follows that Greenline Logistics is not on the city's preferred list.
Which of the following arguments uses reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?
Five fresh questions every day, your progress tracked, every miss explained. Free with an account.
Correct answer
A
Strip each argument to its logical skeleton, then match the skeleton, not the topic.
The original argument has this shape. Premise 1 is a conditional: if a vendor is on the preferred list, then it passed the audit (call this: if on-list, then passed). Premise 2 denies the second part: Greenline did not pass the audit. The conclusion denies the first part: Greenline is not on the list. The valid move is, when the required condition is missing, the thing that required it must be absent too. Symbolically: if A then B; not B; therefore not A. That is a valid pattern.
Now test each choice against that exact skeleton.
(A) States the same conditional (if on-list, then passed), denies the second part (Renko did not pass), and concludes by denying the first part (Renko is not on the list). This is if A then B; not B; therefore not A, the identical structure. (A) is correct.
(B) States the same conditional but then affirms the second part (Renko did pass) and concludes the first part (Renko is on the list). That is the reverse of what the original does. Passing the audit is required for listing, but the conditional never says it is sufficient, so confirming the audit cannot confirm the listing. Wrong structure.
(C) States the same conditional but denies the first part (Renko is not on the list) and concludes by denying the second part (Renko did not pass). A vendor could pass the audit and still be left off the list for another reason, so this does not follow. The original denies the second part to reach the first; (C) denies the first part to reach the second, which is invalid.
(D) Keeps the procurement topic but uses a general rule plus a confirmed membership to draw out a property (Renko is on the list, so it passed). That is a valid but different move that runs from category to property; the original runs from a missing property to ruling a subject out of the category. Same topic, different reasoning.
(E) Reverses the conditional to if passed, then on-list, which is the opposite direction from the original. Building on a backward conditional, its conclusion does not share the original's structure even though the sentences look alike.
The takeaway: for a parallel-reasoning question, translate every argument into its if-then or category form and compare the forms. Choices that keep the topic but change the direction of the conditional, or that affirm where the original denies, are the standard traps.
Pick the theme that suits how you work. You can change it anytime.