Mr. Janeck: I don’t believe Stevenson will win the election for governor. Few voters are willing to elect a businessman with no political experience to such a responsible public office.
Ms. Siuzdak: You’re wrong. The experience of running a major corporation is a valuable preparation for the task of running a state government.
- Siuzdak’s response shows that she has interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply which of the following?
(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
(B) No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
(C) Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
(D) A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one’s ability to run a state government fairly.（A）
(E) Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.
🎯 Three Parallel Arguments with Detailed Analysis
Master the Prediction vs. Evaluation pattern through progressive examples
Argument 1
|
Argument 2
|
Argument 3
|
Comparison
|
Takeaway
🟢 ARGUMENT 1: Pure Parallel
Same reasoning pattern as original question
BASIC
Dialogue:
Dr. Reynolds: I doubt Professor Chen will be appointed as department chair. Faculty members typically hesitate to support candidates who haven’t published research in the past five years.
Dr. Martinez: That’s unfair. Chen’s administrative work and curriculum development provide exactly the leadership experience needed for this role.
🎯 The Core Fallacy: PREDICTION ≠ EVALUATION Confusion
🧠 What’s Actually Happening:
Dr. Reynolds’s statement has two parts:
Notice Reynolds is making a forecast based on other people’s behavior patterns. He’s NOT saying:
He’s simply predicting an outcome based on faculty voting tendencies.
Dr. Martinez responds by defending Chen’s qualifications, which reveals she interpreted Reynolds as claiming Chen is unfit for the role. She responds to an argument about merit when Reynolds only made an argument about probability.
📖 Click for Detailed Breakdown
Detailed Breakdown:
Why This Matters:
This is a common real-world error. When someone says “The market probably won’t buy this product,” they’re not necessarily saying “This product is bad.” They’re making a prediction. Conflating predictions with judgments leads to miscommunication and defensive responses.
💡 Real-World Example:
When someone says “I don’t think voters will elect a woman president – they haven’t in the past,” they’re making a prediction. Calling this “sexist” confuses the prediction with endorsement of that bias.
The Fallacy Name: Conflation of Descriptive and Normative Claims
🟡 ARGUMENT 2: Parallel + Ad Hominem Element
Same pattern plus character attacks
INTERMEDIATE
Dialogue:
Investor Clark: I don’t expect the startup to secure Series B funding. Venture capitalists generally hesitate to back companies without proven revenue models, especially when the founders have been overly optimistic in past projections.
Investor Chen: That’s a cynical take. The founding team’s innovative technology is revolutionary and deserves support from forward-thinking investors.
🎯 Primary Fallacy: PREDICTION ≠ EVALUATION Confusion
➕ Additional Flaw: Ad Hominem Circumstantial
🧠 Detailed Breakdown:
Layer 1 – The Core Misinterpretation:
Just like Argument 1, Clark makes a prediction about VC behavior, but Chen responds as if Clark said the startup doesn’t deserve funding.
Layer 2 – The Ad Hominem Attack:
Clark adds: “especially when the founders have been overly optimistic in past projections”
This introduces an ad hominem circumstantial – attacking the founders’ past behavior/character rather than evaluating the current business model. Clark subtly shifts from “VCs won’t fund this type of company” to “these particular founders have credibility issues.”
Layer 3 – Chen’s Compound Error:
Chen makes TWO mistakes:
Chen adds her own ad hominem by suggesting Clark is being negative rather than realistic.
Why This Is More Complex:
Now we have mutual character attacks layered on top of the prediction/evaluation confusion:
Neither actually debates whether VCs should fund companies without revenue models or whether this particular technology is worthy of investment.
🌍 Real-World Example
Person A: “I don’t think this bill will pass – the senator has flip-flopped on similar issues before.”
Person B: “That’s a partisan attack! You just don’t like progressive policies.”
Person A made a prediction based on past behavior. Person B (1) interpreted it as opposition to the bill’s content, and (2) attacked Person A’s political motives instead of addressing the prediction’s validity.
🔴 ARGUMENT 3: Parallel + False Dichotomy
Most complex: Multiple layered fallacies
ADVANCED
Dialogue:
Council Member Park: I doubt the rezoning proposal will pass. Voters in this district historically reject initiatives from council members without urban planning credentials.
Council Member O’Brien: That’s elitist. Either you believe in empowering community voices or you think only credentialed experts should make decisions about our neighborhoods.
🎯 Primary Fallacy: PREDICTION ≠ EVALUATION Confusion
➕ Additional Flaw: False Dichotomy + Strawman
🧠 Detailed Breakdown:
Layer 1 – The Core Misinterpretation:
Park predicts voter behavior based on historical patterns. O’Brien responds as if Park claimed the proposal shouldn’t pass or that the sponsor is unqualified.
Layer 2 – The False Dichotomy:
O’Brien creates a black-and-white choice:
This is a false dichotomy (also called false binary or excluded middle). O’Brien presents these as the only two options when many middle positions exist:
Layer 3 – The Strawman Element:
By framing Park’s position as “only credentialed experts should decide,” O’Brien creates a more extreme version of Park’s statement. Park never said planning credentials should be required – only that voters tend to prefer them.
Layer 4 – The Rhetorical Label:
O’Brien calls Park’s view “elitist” – a loaded term meant to discredit rather than engage with the argument. This is similar to the “cynical” label in Argument 2.
Why This Is Most Complex:
This combines:
⚠️ The Danger:
False dichotomies shut down nuanced discussion. O’Brien forces Park to either abandon the prediction or be labeled “anti-community,” when Park might actually support the proposal but doubt its chances.
🌍 Real-World Example
Person A: “I don’t think this candidate will win – polls show low name recognition.”
Person B: “So you’re saying only famous people deserve to hold office?”
The responder creates a false choice between believing in democratic participation and acknowledging electoral realities. Person A made no claim about what candidates “deserve” – only about what’s likely to happen.
📊 Comparison Table
🎓 Key Takeaway
📌 The Original Pattern:
When someone says “X probably won’t happen because people tend to do Y,” they’re making a sociological observation, not a moral endorsement of that behavior.
🧠 Why We Confuse Them:
Psychologically, when we hear predictions about negative outcomes for things we support, we instinctively defend them as if they’ve been attacked. Our brains conflate:
✅ How to Avoid This Error:
Before responding defensively, ask yourself: “Is this person describing what will happen, or prescribing what should happen?”
💬 Master this pattern and you’ll catch one of the most common reasoning errors in Critical Reasoning questions!
💪 Practice Tip
When you encounter similar CR questions, look for these red flags:
The correct answer will almost always say Speaker 1 thinks the subject is “unqualified” or “unsuitable” – even though Speaker 1 never said that!
📚 Found this helpful? Practice with more questions and share your insights in the comments below!
Created for VerbalClub community • Critical Reasoning Mastery
/* Responsive Design */
@media (max-width: 768px) {
.parallel-arguments-container h2 {
font-size: 22px !important;
}
.parallel-arguments-container h3 {
font-size: 20px !important;
}
.parallel-arguments-container h4 {
font-size: 16px !important;
}
.parallel-arguments-container > div {
padding: 20px !important;
margin: 20px 0 !important;
}
.parallel-arguments-container table {
font-size: 13px !important;
}
.parallel-arguments-container table th,
.parallel-arguments-container table td {
padding: 10px !important;
}
}
/* Smooth scrolling for anchor links */
html {
scroll-behavior: smooth;
}
/* Hover effects for navigation links */
.parallel-arguments-container a:hover {
opacity: 0.8;
transform: translateY(-2px);
}
/* Details/Summary styling for better UX */
details summary::-webkit-details-marker {
display: none;
}
details summary::before {
content: ‘▶ ‘;
display: inline-block;
transition: transform 0.3s;
}
details[open] summary::before {
transform: rotate(90deg);
}
/* Print styles */
@media print {
.parallel-arguments-container {
background: white !important;
}
details {
border: none !important;
}
details summary {
display: none;
}
details > div {
display: block !important;
padding: 0 !important;
}
}
🟢 BASIC QUESTION
Stimulus
Mr. Harlan: I doubt Olivia will be chosen as team captain. Most players prefer someone with prior sports leadership experience.
Ms. Chen: That’s not true. Running the school orchestra has given Olivia great preparation to lead the team.
Answer Choices
(A) Mr. Harlan thinks players underestimate leadership in the arts.
(B) Mr. Harlan believes past failures disqualify Olivia from leadership.
(C) Mr. Harlan considers Olivia unqualified to be team captain.
(D) Players never elect someone without sports leadership experience.
(E) Ms. Chen believes sports and arts leadership require identical skills.
🔍 Question Type
Inference / Misinterpretation
🧩 Breakdown of Stimulus
🧠 Reasoning Approach
📊 Answer Choice Analysis
✅ Correct Answer
(C) Mr. Harlan considers Olivia unqualified to be team captain.
✨ Key Insights
🟡 INTERMEDIATE QUESTION
Stimulus
Mr. Patel: I doubt Andrea will be promoted to project leader. Executives typically prefer candidates with prior management credentials.
Ms. Gomez: That’s mistaken. Managing a volunteer network gave Andrea exactly the preparation needed to lead a project.
Answer Choices
(A) Executives underestimate the importance of real-world practice.
(B) Mr. Patel thinks volunteer management and corporate management are identical.
(C) Executives always reject candidates without formal credentials.
(D) Mr. Patel believes Andrea lacks the necessary qualifications for project leadership.
(E) A career in volunteer work cannot prepare anyone for corporate leadership.
🔍 Question Type
Inference / Misinterpretation
🧩 Breakdown of Stimulus
🧠 Reasoning Approach
📊 Answer Choice Analysis
✅ Correct Answer
(D) Mr. Patel believes Andrea lacks the necessary qualifications for project leadership.
✨ Key Insights
🔴 HARD QUESTION
Stimulus
Mr. Clark: I doubt Representative Nolan will succeed in passing the tax reform bill. Legislators are usually hesitant to support proposals from lawmakers without prior legislative experience.
Ms. Fraser: That’s unfair. Nolan’s years directing a financial watchdog group are excellent preparation for legislating.
Answer Choices
(A) Legislators consistently overestimate the importance of prior political experience.
(B) Mr. Clark considers Nolan unqualified to draft and promote legislation.
(C) Mr. Clark believes financial oversight and lawmaking are the same.
(D) No inexperienced legislator has ever successfully sponsored a bill.
(E) Nolan’s career background disqualifies him from public office.
🔍 Question Type
Inference / Misinterpretation
🧩 Breakdown of Stimulus
🧠 Reasoning Approach
📊 Answer Choice Analysis
✅ Correct Answer
(B) Mr. Clark considers Nolan unqualified to draft and promote legislation.
✨ Key Insights
🔍 Question Type
Inference / Interpretation of Response
We must determine what Ms. Siuzdak’s reply shows she understood or interpreted Mr. Janeck’s remark to imply.
🧩 Breakdown of Stimulus
Mr. Janeck:
Ms. Siuzdak:
Key Logical Gap:
Janeck predicts how voters will act, but Siuzdak interprets it as a claim about Stevenson’s ability.
🧠 Reasoning Approach
📊 Answer Choice Analysis
(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
✅ Correct.
Siuzdak’s response about the value of business experience makes sense only if she thought Janeck was doubting Stevenson’s fitness for office. This captures the exact misinterpretation.
(B) No candidate without political experience has ever been elected governor of a state.
❌ Too absolute. Janeck said “few voters are willing,” not “none have ever been.” Historical claim = irrelevant exaggeration.
(C) Mr. Janeck believes that political leadership and business leadership are closely analogous.
❌ Opposite meaning. Siuzdak—not Janeck—draws that analogy to defend Stevenson.
(D) A career spent in the pursuit of profit can be an impediment to one’s ability to run a state government fairly.
❌ Out of scope. Neither speaker mentions fairness or profit motives; the issue is experience, not morality.
(E) Voters generally overestimate the value of political experience when selecting a candidate.
❌ Irrelevant. That would critique voter judgment. Janeck merely predicts voter behavior without evaluating it.
✅ Correct Answer
(A) Mr. Janeck considers Stevenson unqualified for the office of governor.
Ms. Siuzdak’s defense of business experience reveals she interpreted Janeck’s remark as an attack on Stevenson’s qualifications, not merely as a forecast about voters.
✨ Key Insights
When one speaker predicts what others will do, and the second replies by defending someone’s ability or character, the correct inference usually reflects a misinterpretation of prediction as evaluation.
GMAT wrong answers often exaggerate with “never,” “always,” or “no one,” which distort moderate statements like “few” or “most.”
In dialogue questions, always map what is actually claimed vs. how the other speaker interprets it. The logic gap between them is the test-maker’s target.
✅ Final Answer: (A)