Which option demonstrates parallel reasoning to the pattern used in the argument that a policy will work because it has done so in a similar context?

• A. It claims success due to a single favorable testimonial.
• B. It asserts success due to a broader trend, without evidence.
• C. It argues success in one district proves it will work nationwide.
• D. It claims success due to a single favorable testimonial.

Answer: (C)

Generalizing from a similar setting to a broader outcome is the pattern here. The idea is to move from a result in one context to an expected result in a much wider context, treating the two as interchangeable. When you hear that a policy will work because it did in one district, that mirrors the same move: a success in a comparable setting is used to justify success on a larger scale.

The option that fits best shows success in one district being taken as proof it will work nationwide. That exactly demonstrates extending a finding from a specific, similar context to a broader application, which is the core reasoning being tested.

The other options rely on different kinds of support. A and D lean on a single favorable testimonial, which is anecdotal evidence and doesn’t illustrate the same extrapolation from one context to many. B talks about a broader trend but offers no evidence, and it doesn't reflect applying a result from a similar setting to a wider scope.