Logical thinking

Hi, I can’t seem to comprehend the logic beneath this type of exercises, can someone help?
The question is:
People who take their holidays in Las Vegas love to gamble. Gerry will be going to France for his holiday so he must not like gambling.
Choose the option that mostly parallels the reasoning used in the above argument:
A) In England cars are driven on the left side of the road. We are driving on the left, so we must be in England.
B) People who live in the city hate traffic jams. You live in the country so you must like traffic jams.
C)People who eat a lot of sweets have rotten teeth. You eat a lot of sweets, so your teeth must be rotten.
D) You have to find the password to complete the game. You haven’t finished the game yet so you can’t have found the password.
E) You always walk when you are visiting your sister. You are not visiting your sister so that’s why you are taking the car.

The right one is B.
If someone could help me understand it would be great! Thank you.

Yes, option B is the most parallel to the reasoning used in the original argument. Both arguments make an assumption about someone’s preferences or behavior based on where they live or what they do.

In the original argument, the assumption is that since Gerry is going to France for his holiday, he must not like gambling. In option B, the assumption is that since someone lives in the country, they must like traffic jams.

In both cases, the arguments make a generalization about a group of people (people who take holidays in Las Vegas, people who live in the city) and then use that generalization to make an inference about an individual (Gerry, the person living in the country).

It’s important to note that these types of arguments can be problematic because they oversimplify complex issues and can lead to incorrect conclusions. Just because someone lives in the country or takes a holiday in Las Vegas doesn’t necessarily mean they like or dislike traffic jams or gambling, respectively.

Okay, thank you. But why option C isn’t correct then?


The original sequence is as follows:
If X then Y. Instead Z so won’t have Y.

Option C states:
If X Then Y. Doing X so will have Y.

As you can see the sequence is not the same so it cannot be a parallel to the original reasoning.

Hope this helps!