- Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:45 pm
So, it's important to remember that what we are doing in each parallel flaw question is to parallel the reasoning and all of its components in the answer choice. Thus, any question that does not do this is incorrect.
For the stimulus's argument, we have the following conditional statements: if global warming is to be halted, one must decrease reliance on fossil fuels. If economic incentives to develop alternative energy sources were present, then global reliance would decrease. It then concludes that if one wishes to end global warming, one must develop alternative energy sources. The flaw here is that it confuses the sufficient condition in second conditional statement with the necessary condition in the first, thus attempting to construct a chain using conditional statements whose common feature is a necessary condition (chains are constructed eliminating the necessary condition in one with the sufficient condition in the other).
B is wrong because it does not follow the flawed reasoning in the stimulus. For B we have the following conditionals: if exercise daily, then you must have good health, if you have good health then must have happy life, if you have good health, then must exercise daily. The conclusion here is simply a reversal of the first conditional statement, a mistaken reversal, but that doesn't parallel the reasoning in the stimulus. We do not have the similar confusion of the sufficient condition in the second conditional statement with the necessary condition in the other.
Let me know if you have further questions on this.