Most of the employees of the Compujack Corporation are computer programmers.
Evidence
Most Compujack employees Most A's are B's. are computer programmers.
Most computer programmers Most B's are C's. receive excellent salaries.
Conclusion
There must be at least one Some A's are C's. Compujack employee that receives an excellent salary.
Evaluate
The cool thing with Parallel Flaw is that if there are obvious Quantifier / Conditional keywords, then we can potentially get the correct answer just by matching the structural signposts, regardless of whether we actually understand how the original argument was flawed.
This is one of those cases. The two premises are Most claims. The conclusion is "at least one", which is equivalent to Some.
The relationship between the two premises we need to replicate is that one Most claim begins where the other Most claim ends (the overlapping idea computer programmers is the end of one Most claim and the beginning of another).
If you're curious why this is flawed reasoning, we're only allowed to prove a Trait Overlap when the two most facts are about the same group.
A valid argument would sound like this: Most employees at Compujack Corporation are programmers. Most employees at Compujack Corporation have excellent salaries. Thus, at least one programmer has excellent salary.
The valid "Most + Most" form looks like this:
Most A's are B Most A's are C
infer: B and C have at least some overlap
The invalid form here is this:
Most A's are B Most B's are C
infer: A and C have at least some overlap
This is not good logic as you can see from this argument: Most death row inmates are adult men. Most adult men have full-time jobs. Thus, at least one death row inmate has a full-time job.
Goal
We want this form: Most A's are B Most B's are C infer: A and C have at least some overlap
The quickest things to scan for would be making sure we have two Most premises and one Some conclusion. And the two Most premises should "chain" together (i.e. one begins where the other ends).