- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Dec 13, 2016 2:51 pm
#31414
Complete Question Explanation
In this Parallel Flaw question, the first step is to identify the flaw in the stimulus, as that is the thing we need to parallel or duplicate in our chosen answer. Here, the presence of the word "anyone" should alert the reader to the presence of conditional reasoning, as that is a classic sufficient condition indicator.
The argument is built as follows:
If seeking a job with an international organization, then travel abroad a lot (SJIO
TA)
The prime minister has met the necessary condition (TA), so he must meet the sufficient condition (SJIO) (TA SJIO)
This is a classic Mistaken Reversal, and that is what we must look for in the answer choices. We need a conditional argument with only two terms, the necessary condition being met, and a conclusion that the sufficient condition must also be met.
Answer A: This looks more like a repeat form (the sufficient condition is met so the necessary condition must be met), except for additional problem of "most". The use of "most" here, along with the absence of any mistaken reversal, takes this one out of the running.
Answer B: As this answer contains no conditional reasoning at all, it is an easy one to reject as a loser.
Answer C: This answer is also devoid of any sort of "if...then" structure, other than an implied conditional (the author seems to have assumed that if the light changes as you approach then you must have made it change), so it is also a loser.
Answer D: This is the correct answer. "People who" is your red flag here, indicating a sufficient condition just like "anyone" in the stimulus. Here, it's "if negotiating a loan, then go to the bank" (NL GTB); Thompson met the necessary condition (GTB) so he must have met the sufficient condition (NL). A Mistaken Reversal just like in the stimulus. Winner!
Answer E: Nothing conditional here, this answer instead makes an evidence error by relying on a lack of evidence against a claim to prove that claim is true. While that is indeed a flaw in the reasoning, it is not the flaw we were looking for.
In this Parallel Flaw question, the first step is to identify the flaw in the stimulus, as that is the thing we need to parallel or duplicate in our chosen answer. Here, the presence of the word "anyone" should alert the reader to the presence of conditional reasoning, as that is a classic sufficient condition indicator.
The argument is built as follows:
If seeking a job with an international organization, then travel abroad a lot (SJIO
TA)The prime minister has met the necessary condition (TA), so he must meet the sufficient condition (SJIO) (TA
SJIO)This is a classic Mistaken Reversal, and that is what we must look for in the answer choices. We need a conditional argument with only two terms, the necessary condition being met, and a conclusion that the sufficient condition must also be met.
Answer A: This looks more like a repeat form (the sufficient condition is met so the necessary condition must be met), except for additional problem of "most". The use of "most" here, along with the absence of any mistaken reversal, takes this one out of the running.
Answer B: As this answer contains no conditional reasoning at all, it is an easy one to reject as a loser.
Answer C: This answer is also devoid of any sort of "if...then" structure, other than an implied conditional (the author seems to have assumed that if the light changes as you approach then you must have made it change), so it is also a loser.
Answer D: This is the correct answer. "People who" is your red flag here, indicating a sufficient condition just like "anyone" in the stimulus. Here, it's "if negotiating a loan, then go to the bank" (NL
GTB); Thompson met the necessary condition (GTB) so he must have met the sufficient condition (NL). A Mistaken Reversal just like in the stimulus. Winner!Answer E: Nothing conditional here, this answer instead makes an evidence error by relying on a lack of evidence against a claim to prove that claim is true. While that is indeed a flaw in the reasoning, it is not the flaw we were looking for.