- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Mon Feb 21, 2011 12:00 am
#36660
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)
Here we are presented with a discussion about Vidmar, whose individual private collection was
among the most valuable ever assembled. After Vidmar died, and her collection was to be auctioned
off, “art lover MacNeil” believed that it would be impossible to afford any of the works in Vidmar’s
collection:
the whole is also true of each component—just because the collection as a whole is one of the most
expensive in existence, that does not mean that every single work in the collection is priceless. This
is a classic Error of Division—the flawed presumption that what is true of the whole must be true of
each part. Vidmar might have had varied tastes, and may have had many inexpensive works in her
collection. Hypothetically, the collection could even have been comprised exclusively of inexpensive
works (even if each painting in a collection were valued at only $50, a collection of a million such
paintings would still be worth $50 million).
The stimulus is followed by a Parallel Flaw question, so the correct answer choice will reflect the
mistaken presumption that what is true of a whole is also true of each of its parts.
Answer choice (A): In a sense this is the reverse of what we’re looking for. In this choice, the author
considers an attribute of each component (that is, each word), and draws a conclusion about the
whole (the entire book). This is an Error of Composition, which does not provide a parallel flaw. In
the stimulus, the premise was an attribute of the whole, and the conclusion wrongly presumed each
part to share that attribute.
Answer choice (B): If the vote was unanimous, it would seem that councilperson Martinez was
indeed among those who voted to adopt the plan. This is actually a scenario in which (if everyone
on the council voted) it would actually be valid to presume that what is true of the whole is also true
of the sum of the parts; if the vote was unanimous, then it would be valid to conclude that everyone
who voted had voted in favor of the decision. Since this reasoning is not necessarily flawed, it cannot
provide the parallel flawed reasoning in this case.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it is the one that reflects the mistaken
notion that what is true of a whole is therefore also true of each of its component parts. In the
same way that it was incorrect to presume that every work in an expensive collection must itself be
expensive, it is also wrong to conclude that every sentence in a long paragraph must itself be long.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is similar to answer choice (A) in that it references an
Error of Composition, not Division. While it is invalid to conclude that a company is old based on
a number of old employees, the flawed reasoning reflected in the stimulus is different from that reflected in this answer choice. Again, the flaw that would parallel that of the stimulus must involve
the presumption that what is true of the whole is also true of each constituent part.
Answer choice (E): The reasoning in this answer choice is the mistaken presumption that if it is
true of the parts, it must also be true of the whole (again, another Error of Composition). Although
this reasoning is flawed, it does not parallel that of the stimulus, which asserts that if it is true of the
whole, it must also be true of each part.
Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)
Here we are presented with a discussion about Vidmar, whose individual private collection was
among the most valuable ever assembled. After Vidmar died, and her collection was to be auctioned
off, “art lover MacNeil” believed that it would be impossible to afford any of the works in Vidmar’s
collection:
- Premise: Vidmar’s is among the most valuable art collections ever assembled by a
single individual.
Conclusion: Thus, claims MacNeil, MacNeil cannot possibly afford any of the works being
auctioned.
the whole is also true of each component—just because the collection as a whole is one of the most
expensive in existence, that does not mean that every single work in the collection is priceless. This
is a classic Error of Division—the flawed presumption that what is true of the whole must be true of
each part. Vidmar might have had varied tastes, and may have had many inexpensive works in her
collection. Hypothetically, the collection could even have been comprised exclusively of inexpensive
works (even if each painting in a collection were valued at only $50, a collection of a million such
paintings would still be worth $50 million).
The stimulus is followed by a Parallel Flaw question, so the correct answer choice will reflect the
mistaken presumption that what is true of a whole is also true of each of its parts.
Answer choice (A): In a sense this is the reverse of what we’re looking for. In this choice, the author
considers an attribute of each component (that is, each word), and draws a conclusion about the
whole (the entire book). This is an Error of Composition, which does not provide a parallel flaw. In
the stimulus, the premise was an attribute of the whole, and the conclusion wrongly presumed each
part to share that attribute.
Answer choice (B): If the vote was unanimous, it would seem that councilperson Martinez was
indeed among those who voted to adopt the plan. This is actually a scenario in which (if everyone
on the council voted) it would actually be valid to presume that what is true of the whole is also true
of the sum of the parts; if the vote was unanimous, then it would be valid to conclude that everyone
who voted had voted in favor of the decision. Since this reasoning is not necessarily flawed, it cannot
provide the parallel flawed reasoning in this case.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as it is the one that reflects the mistaken
notion that what is true of a whole is therefore also true of each of its component parts. In the
same way that it was incorrect to presume that every work in an expensive collection must itself be
expensive, it is also wrong to conclude that every sentence in a long paragraph must itself be long.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice is similar to answer choice (A) in that it references an
Error of Composition, not Division. While it is invalid to conclude that a company is old based on
a number of old employees, the flawed reasoning reflected in the stimulus is different from that reflected in this answer choice. Again, the flaw that would parallel that of the stimulus must involve
the presumption that what is true of the whole is also true of each constituent part.
Answer choice (E): The reasoning in this answer choice is the mistaken presumption that if it is
true of the parts, it must also be true of the whole (again, another Error of Composition). Although
this reasoning is flawed, it does not parallel that of the stimulus, which asserts that if it is true of the
whole, it must also be true of each part.