Thus, the first choice can be eliminated. The conclusion for this choice involves a sweeping generalization regarding farmers and plant resistant crops. In addition, both of the similar arguments begin with a description of how two situations cannot occur simultaneously within the specific event. In each argument, one of the situations is dependant upon another situation. Carly Simon's stopping in Columbus is dependant on her stopping in River Glen, and Annabelle's vote for Anastasia is dependant on Alexis's not running. In both situations, the dependant situation does not occur, causing the non-dependant situation to occur. 3. The reasoning in the first statement is most closely associated with the following statement: "The Tax Code is unfair. It treats non-home owners as a special group when it denies them some rights other citizens have. This treatment...

In the first argument, the speaker reasons that the necklace is valuable because it fits into the category of items from Tiffany's and items from Tiffany's fit into the category of things that are valuable. In the same way, in the second argument the speaker reasons that the tax code is unfair because it fits into the category of things that contain discrimination, and things that contain discrimination fit into the even larger category of things that are unfair. The first and second choices are not parallel to this reasoning at all, as they do not offer the same sort of categorical reasoning. The fourth choice relies on experience, not categories, as evidence. Finally, the last argument allows concludes a different premise, also unlike the sample.