- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:42 pm
#36961
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Flaw—SN. The correct answer choice is (B)
In this stimulus, the political scientist provides the following conditional premises:
The political scientist then jumps to the following unwarranted conclusion:
AD, but the flaw is clear. What we really know based
on the above premises is that any government worthy of respect (GWR) exhibits both of the other
discussed attributes: that is, they allow dissent (AD), and they protect minorities (PM). The speaker
cannot logically conclude that any government that protects minorities will also allow dissent from
government policies, so the argument is flawed.
We are asked to find the answer that most closely parallels the argument in the stimulus, so we should
look for the choice that employs a similar brand of flawed reasoning.
Answer choice (A): Although the reasoning in this answer is flawed, the mistake is of a different sort;
here, the stimulus defines politicians as admirable if they put the interests of those they serve above their
own. The author attempts to draw from this the conclusion that politicians are admirable for putting the
nation’s interests above those of their constituents. This leap is unjustified, but not in the same way as
the conditional reasoning in the stimulus, so this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, as it employs the same type of flawed reasoning:
necessary variables from the premises and has attempted to tie them together in a sufficient/necessary
relationship.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice also represents a mistake in logic, but the reasoning here does
not parallel that found in the stimulus. Rather, this choice represents a mistaken negation, as follows:
Cool, dry ecosystems are populated by large mammals:
CDE LM
No such systems have abundant and varied plant life: LM AVPL
If we link these two premises, we get the following: CDE LM AVPL
From the above statement this inference can be drawn: CDE AVPL
But the mistaken negation is drawn instead: CDE AVPL
Answer choice (D): The fact that the conditional variable in this case introduces “some” into the
equation tells us that it will not logically parallel the method of argumentation used in the stimulus.
Answer choice (E): This answer also contains a “some,” so we can safely conclude that it will not follow
the same overall logical flow, and is incorrect.
Parallel Flaw—SN. The correct answer choice is (B)
In this stimulus, the political scientist provides the following conditional premises:
- Premise: All governments worthy of respect allow dissent from policies:
GWR AD
Premise: No government worthy of respect leaves minorities unprotected (so, if
one does not protect minorities, one is not a government worthy of respect, and on
the other side of the coin, if a government is worthy of respect, it will protect its
minorities):
GWR PM
The political scientist then jumps to the following unwarranted conclusion:
- Conclusion: Any government that protects minorities permits criticism of its policies (that is, any
government that protects minorities allows some dissent)
PM AD
- GWR AD
GWR PM
AD, but the flaw is clear. What we really know basedon the above premises is that any government worthy of respect (GWR) exhibits both of the other
discussed attributes: that is, they allow dissent (AD), and they protect minorities (PM). The speaker
cannot logically conclude that any government that protects minorities will also allow dissent from
government policies, so the argument is flawed.
We are asked to find the answer that most closely parallels the argument in the stimulus, so we should
look for the choice that employs a similar brand of flawed reasoning.
Answer choice (A): Although the reasoning in this answer is flawed, the mistake is of a different sort;
here, the stimulus defines politicians as admirable if they put the interests of those they serve above their
own. The author attempts to draw from this the conclusion that politicians are admirable for putting the
nation’s interests above those of their constituents. This leap is unjustified, but not in the same way as
the conditional reasoning in the stimulus, so this answer is incorrect.
Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice, as it employs the same type of flawed reasoning:
- All jazz musicians are capable of improvising: JM I
No jazz musician is incapable of reading music
(which means every one is capable of reading music): JM RM
Conclusion: All who can read music can improvise: RM I
necessary variables from the premises and has attempted to tie them together in a sufficient/necessary
relationship.
Answer choice (C): This answer choice also represents a mistake in logic, but the reasoning here does
not parallel that found in the stimulus. Rather, this choice represents a mistaken negation, as follows:
Cool, dry ecosystems are populated by large mammals:
CDE LMNo such systems have abundant and varied plant life:
LM AVPLIf we link these two premises, we get the following:
CDE LM AVPLFrom the above statement this inference can be drawn:
CDE AVPLBut the mistaken negation is drawn instead:
CDE AVPLAnswer choice (D): The fact that the conditional variable in this case introduces “some” into the
equation tells us that it will not logically parallel the method of argumentation used in the stimulus.
Answer choice (E): This answer also contains a “some,” so we can safely conclude that it will not follow
the same overall logical flow, and is incorrect.
Good luck studying!