- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:54 pm
#32727
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (A)
Advertisements on the LSAT are known for their faulty logic, and this one is no exception. Successful students Amy, Matt, and Evelyn all used VIVVY when they were children. So, by analogy, the author concludes that if your child uses VIVVY, you can expect a similar result. This is clearly a flawed argument, but it is important to pause and understand why.
The advertisement is based on the dubious assumption that VIVVY caused Amy, Matt, and Evelyn to become academically successful. We know this, because the advertisement predicts a similar outcome if another child takes up VIVVY. Obviously, just because Amy, Matt, and Evelyn all happened to use VIVVY seventeen years ago does not mean that VIVVY is the reason for their success (a lot can happen in seventeen years). Simply put, the advertisement confuses coincidence with causation. Understanding this flaw will help you eliminate four of the answer choices relatively easily.
The question stem requires us to demonstrate most effectively by parallel reasoning that the argument in the advertisement is flawed. This is certainly a novel way of introducing a Parallel Flaw question, but it shouldn’t throw you off. It’s the new normal for modern-day LSAT exams.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Just like the VIVVY-educated successful students in the ad, here we learn that Annie, Francisco, and Sean are all lottery winners who carry good-luck charms. This coincidence is striking, but clearly does not prove that carrying a good-luck charm helped them win the lottery any more than using VIVVY helped Amy, Matt, and Evelyn become successful students. Both arguments infer a causal connection from a mere coincidence, and both expect the effect to occur if someone else engages in the activity that allegedly causes the effect. Answer choice (A) provides a suitable analogy to this logical flaw, and is therefore correct.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect, because neither the premises nor the conclusion match the ones in the stimulus. Here, the author predicts that a certain cause will not produce the expected effect (Jesse should not expect to get food poisoning from the company picnic), because the cause has only produced the effect once (only Christine has gotten sick so far). While clearly flawed, this line of reasoning does not parallel the original flaw in the advertisement.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect, because it infers a definitive outcome based on probabilistic reasoning. The relationship between new hires and being laid off is not presumed to exist, as it is in the stimulus. Here, it is stated as a fact: any new employee can expect to be laid off. Since Eric, Diane, and Martin are the only new employees, they can surely expect to be laid off. The author mistakenly believes that they will be laid off, but confusing probability with certainty is not the same as confusing coincidence with causation.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect, because it assumes that there is only one possible cause for a given effect. Routinely exceeding the speed limit leads to speeding tickets. However, just because Ken, Norma, and Mary have all gotten speeding tickets does not mean they are routinely fast drivers. Maybe they have all been driving for fifty years, and each of them happened to get a speeding ticket one day. Unlike the advertisement in the stimulus, here the author does not conflate coincidence with causation (the causal relationship between speeding and getting a ticket is a stated fact). Rather, the error lies in the assumption that there is only one possible explanation for the observed effect.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice may seem attractive, because it contains a Time Shift error: just because most Perry graduates landed jobs last year does not mean that this year’s graduates will be as lucky. We cannot predict a future outcome on the basis of events that have occurred in the past. The similarities with the original argument end here. Unlike the VIVVY advertisement, the author does not conflate coincidence with causation. Nobody is assuming that Perry graduates find jobs because they went to Perry. The reasoning is probabilistic, not causal. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that most Perry graduates find jobs, unlike the advertisement where all three of the VIVVY children became successful university students.
Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (A)
Advertisements on the LSAT are known for their faulty logic, and this one is no exception. Successful students Amy, Matt, and Evelyn all used VIVVY when they were children. So, by analogy, the author concludes that if your child uses VIVVY, you can expect a similar result. This is clearly a flawed argument, but it is important to pause and understand why.
The advertisement is based on the dubious assumption that VIVVY caused Amy, Matt, and Evelyn to become academically successful. We know this, because the advertisement predicts a similar outcome if another child takes up VIVVY. Obviously, just because Amy, Matt, and Evelyn all happened to use VIVVY seventeen years ago does not mean that VIVVY is the reason for their success (a lot can happen in seventeen years). Simply put, the advertisement confuses coincidence with causation. Understanding this flaw will help you eliminate four of the answer choices relatively easily.
The question stem requires us to demonstrate most effectively by parallel reasoning that the argument in the advertisement is flawed. This is certainly a novel way of introducing a Parallel Flaw question, but it shouldn’t throw you off. It’s the new normal for modern-day LSAT exams.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Just like the VIVVY-educated successful students in the ad, here we learn that Annie, Francisco, and Sean are all lottery winners who carry good-luck charms. This coincidence is striking, but clearly does not prove that carrying a good-luck charm helped them win the lottery any more than using VIVVY helped Amy, Matt, and Evelyn become successful students. Both arguments infer a causal connection from a mere coincidence, and both expect the effect to occur if someone else engages in the activity that allegedly causes the effect. Answer choice (A) provides a suitable analogy to this logical flaw, and is therefore correct.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is incorrect, because neither the premises nor the conclusion match the ones in the stimulus. Here, the author predicts that a certain cause will not produce the expected effect (Jesse should not expect to get food poisoning from the company picnic), because the cause has only produced the effect once (only Christine has gotten sick so far). While clearly flawed, this line of reasoning does not parallel the original flaw in the advertisement.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice is incorrect, because it infers a definitive outcome based on probabilistic reasoning. The relationship between new hires and being laid off is not presumed to exist, as it is in the stimulus. Here, it is stated as a fact: any new employee can expect to be laid off. Since Eric, Diane, and Martin are the only new employees, they can surely expect to be laid off. The author mistakenly believes that they will be laid off, but confusing probability with certainty is not the same as confusing coincidence with causation.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is incorrect, because it assumes that there is only one possible cause for a given effect. Routinely exceeding the speed limit leads to speeding tickets. However, just because Ken, Norma, and Mary have all gotten speeding tickets does not mean they are routinely fast drivers. Maybe they have all been driving for fifty years, and each of them happened to get a speeding ticket one day. Unlike the advertisement in the stimulus, here the author does not conflate coincidence with causation (the causal relationship between speeding and getting a ticket is a stated fact). Rather, the error lies in the assumption that there is only one possible explanation for the observed effect.
Answer choice (E): This answer choice may seem attractive, because it contains a Time Shift error: just because most Perry graduates landed jobs last year does not mean that this year’s graduates will be as lucky. We cannot predict a future outcome on the basis of events that have occurred in the past. The similarities with the original argument end here. Unlike the VIVVY advertisement, the author does not conflate coincidence with causation. Nobody is assuming that Perry graduates find jobs because they went to Perry. The reasoning is probabilistic, not causal. Furthermore, the evidence indicates that most Perry graduates find jobs, unlike the advertisement where all three of the VIVVY children became successful university students.
