Question

An argument is given below, on the basis of that argument; find out the parallel argument from the given list of subsequent arguments.

Argument: Himalayan Sparrows are disappearing. This bird is an Indian bird; therefore, Indian birds are disappearing.

Subsequent Arguments:

• A. Industrialists pay most of the taxes. 'Z' is a wealthy man therefore 'Z' must pay most taxes
• B. A pineapple is a fruit, a mango is a fruit therefore pineapple is a mango
• C. Snow tigers are an endangered species; all endangered species must be protected; therefore snow-tiger must be protected
• D. John is his father's favorite son, and John knows this must be true because his father told him this; and no father would lie to his favorite son

Hint:

Replace the nouns with letters and compare skeletons. Look for the option where two true statements about class membership are forced into a conclusion the premises cannot support.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Parallel reasoning questions reward the student who ignores the topic and looks only at the shape. Replace every noun with a letter and the answer usually falls out. The given argument becomes: A is disappearing; A belongs to class B; so B is disappearing. Two ordinary categorical statements go in, and out comes a sweeping claim about a whole class that the premises never earned. The correct option must show the same move: harmless class-membership premises producing a conclusion the premises cannot carry.

1. Industrialists pay most of the taxes. 'Z' is a wealthy man therefore 'Z' must pay most taxes: Letter it out and you get: class N does X; z is in class W; so z does X. The premises never connect W with N, so there are four separate terms floating about with no bridge between them. The given argument at least has a genuine shared term, the Himalayan Sparrow. This option also travels downwards, applying a group's trait to one individual, while the given argument travels upwards from one member to the group. Wrong shape and wrong direction.
2. A pineapple is a fruit, a mango is a fruit therefore pineapple is a mango: Letter it out and you get: P is in class F; M is in class F; so P is M. Both premises are true, both are simple statements of class membership, and the conclusion illicitly welds the two outer terms together. That is the same accident as the sparrow argument, where true statements about one bird and its class are welded into a false claim about every Indian bird. Membership of a class is being treated as if it settles far more than it actually does. This is the parallel.
3. Snow tigers are an endangered species; all endangered species must be protected; therefore snow-tiger must be protected: This is a textbook valid syllogism. A rule is stated for a whole class and then applied to a member of that class, which is perfectly sound reasoning. The given argument is unsound, so a sound argument cannot be its parallel.
4. John is his father's favorite son, and John knows this must be true because his father told him this; and no father would lie to his favorite son: The reason offered depends on the conclusion already being true, so the argument chases its own tail. Circular reasoning is a different family of error altogether from the class error in the sparrow argument.

So option (B) is the answer. It is the only choice built, like the original, from two true class-membership premises that are pushed into a conclusion they cannot support.

Let's summarize:

• Strip the argument to letters before comparing anything.
• A parallel argument must repeat the flaw, not just the topic.
• A valid option, like (C), is never parallel to a flawed original.

The parallel argument is option (B).