The correct answer is (A).
(A) Parallel Reasoning
(Step 1: Identify the Question Type
The correct answer will be an argument that is "most similar" in reasoning to the argument in the stimulus. That makes this a Parallel Reasoning question.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
The author concludes ([ s] o) that indifference results in harm to nature's balance. That's because indifference leads to pollution, which in turn results in harm to nature's balance.
Step 3: Make a Prediction
This argument is a straightforward connection of Formal Logic:
Evidence:
If X (indifference) _ Y (pollution)
If Y (pollution) _ Z (harm balance)
Conclusion:
If X (indifference) _ Z (harm balance)
The correct answer will follow the same basic format.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(A) matches.
If X (chocolate) _ Y (high in calories)
If Y (high in calories) _ Z (fattening)
If X _ Z
(B) does not match. It starts with:
If X (chocolate) _ Y (high in calories)
But then the second sentence goes backwards:
If Z (fattening) _ Y (high in calories)
Those claims cannot be combined the same way as the original because the Y term is necessary in both pieces of evidence. Also, in this argument, the conclusion is flawed due to improperly chaining the statements.
(C) does not match. It starts with:
If X (high in calories) _ Y (chocolate)
But the second claim again starts with X:
If X (high in calories) _ Z (fattening)
Those claims cannot be combined the same way as the original because the X term is sufficient in both pieces of evidence. Also, in this argument, the conclusion is flawed due to improperly chaining the statements.
(D) does not match even though the evidence is perfect.
If X (chocolate) _ Y (high in calories)
If Y (high in calories) _ Z (fattening)
But then the conclusion illogically reverses the logic . . .
If Z _ X
. . . which is not what the original argument did.
(E) does not match. The evidence and the conclusion discuss "many desserts," which is not the same absolute logic as the original.
