Most people who shop for groceries no more than three times a month buy prepared frozen dinners regularly.
Conclusion (Therefore)
In Hallstown, most people buy prepared frozen dinners regularly.
Evidence
In Hallstown, most people shop for groceries no more than three times a month.
Most people who shop for groceries no more than three times a month buy prepared frozen dinners regularly.
Evaluate
When we're doing Parallel / Parallel Flaw, and the argument contains conditionals, quantifiers, or pairs of repeating ideas, it's usually a good idea to convert the argument into an algebraic recipe. If possible, we go straight to generic variables like A/B/C or X/Y/Z, but below we'll go in steps.
(Prem 1) In Hallstown, most people shop for groceries no more than three times a month. Most H's are 3max.
(Prem 2) Most people who shop for groceries no more than three times a month buy prepared frozen dinners regularly. Most 3max are FDR.
(Conc) In Hallstown, most people buy prepared frozen dinners regularly. Most H's are FDR.
We can see that all three claims are most claims, and they're trying to form this sort of chain: Most A's are B + Most B's are C --------------------------- Most A's are C
That is illegal. The only legal inferences we make with two Most claims are these: Most A's are B Most A's are B + Most A's are C Most B's are ~A ------------------- ------------------ Some B's are C More B's than A's
We can demonstrate how chaining most statements doesn't work with an analogy: Most Senators are men Most men make < $100k ----------------------------------------- Most Senators make < $100k ?
Goal
Look for an argument with two Most premises and a Most conclusion. The two premises should be trying to "chain together". The overlapping concept they share should be the beginning of one of the claims and the ending of the other claim.