#26 - It is common to respond to a person who is

[PeterC123]

Hi,

I do not understand the reasoning in the argument?I don't even know if it is flawed or not.

And can you show me what an abstract version looks like?

Thank you,

[Kristina Moen]

Hi Peter,

The structure of this argument is a common one:
"Some people believe/say/do..." "But they're wrong." "Here's why."

The author tells us about a common response to people exhorting us to change our behavior. The conclusion is "This response is irrational." Why? Because whether someone heeds their own advice is irrelevant to whether their advice should be heeded.

Here are some examples of what the author is describing: A smoker tells you to quit smoking. An overweight person gives you dieting advice. A high school dropout gives you academic guidance.

Parallel Reasoning questions that contain a flaw will include that information in the Question Stem. Here, no flaw is mentioned. You may not agree with the conclusion because you might not agree with the premise. However, you are being asked to find an answer choice with an argument that has similar reasoning.

This argument is already fairly abstract (i.e. not talking about a specific person or advice), but if I had to abstract it, I might say:
Whether the source of advice follows their own advice doesn't matter.

[sodomojo]

Is it just me or was this a bit of an odd parallel question?

I'm used to focusing on structure when it comes to parallel questions. Here I saw: premise, conclusion about irrationality, premise. And that led me to answer choice (A).

While I can see how (D) parallels the ad hominem message of the stimulus, it would have been a much more intuitive answer for me to pick, if this question had a "Which of the following situations most conforms to the principle illustrated above?" stem instead - with the principle being the final sentence of the stimulus.

Does that make any sense or am I just tweaking here?

[Claire Horan]

Sure, Sodomojo, this question is a bit different from most parallel reasoning questions in that there is a prominent principle in each argument, but analyzing structure still gets you to the right answer.

Stimulus:
Conclusion
Premise: a principle that, when applied to the situation mentioned, supports the conclusion.

If you still have multiple contenders after analyzing the structure, then you can further break down what that principle is: Don't judge a stance/argument by the actions of the person who espouses it.

That will yield answer choice (D), which matches in both structure and in identifying the same ad hominem issue.

Lastly, I am not sure whether this is what you meant or not, but when you explained your choice of answer choice (A), it seemed like you were equating order and structure. Order is irrelevant for determining whether an argument is parallel. For example, an answer choice that stated the principle first and then applied it to the conclusion would still be parallel.

Thanks for the questions!

[lsatquestions]

I was stuck between A and D and ultimately chose A because it made a recommendation (disarm) like the stimulus rather than D which just makes an argument (matter doesn't exist). Can you explain why A is incorrect?

[Adam Tyson]

The argument in the stimulus is that it is irrational to point out the behavior of someone making an argument, because their behavior doesn't matter.

The argument in answer A is that it is irrational to do what the other party says to do, because their behavior undermines their position.

The abstraction of the two arguments is very different! Answer A is doing the very thing that the stimulus said was irrational to do!