Why (C) is right: matching a valid pattern
A Parallel reasoning explanation from our free library. The question below is original, written for this page. Then the full breakdown: why the right answer is right, and why each wrong answer is wrong.
The question
If the power is out, the building alarm will not sound. The power is out. So the alarm will not sound.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its pattern of reasoning to the argument above?
- If it rains, the game will be canceled. The game was canceled. So it must have rained.
- The game was canceled because it rained.
- If it rains, the game will be canceled. It is raining. So the game will be canceled. Correct
- If it rains, the game might be canceled. It is raining, so cancellation is possible.
- The game was not canceled, so it did not rain.
Why (C) is correct
The stimulus is the textbook valid move: if P then Q; P; therefore Q. Choice (C) is the same move with different content: if rain then cancellation; rain; therefore cancellation. Match the skeleton, ignoring the topic.
(A) is the trap that catches the most people: it looks similar because it uses the same conditional, but it runs the logic backwards. (E) is subtler: valid, but a different valid form. Parallel reasoning is about the exact shape, not just whether the reasoning works.
Why the wrong answers are wrong
(A) Reversed
This argues from the result back to the cause, which the premises do not license. The stimulus argues from cause to result. Different pattern, and a flawed one.
(B) Out of scope
This is a causal explanation, not a conditional argument. It does not even have the if-then structure.
(D) Half-right
The hedged 'might' changes the logic. The stimulus draws a definite conclusion from a definite conditional; this one does not.
(E) Half-right
This is valid logic, but a different valid pattern. The stimulus affirms the antecedent; this denies the consequent. Parallel means same pattern, not just same verdict of validity.
Last updated October 12, 2026