- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Tue Apr 26, 2016 11:31 am
#23395
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Flaw-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus argues that since some of the people in a study had lowered blood pressure while petting animals, those people would have lower average blood pressure if they owned a pet.
If you didn't pick out a flaw, you should have noticed that the question stem mentions one, and returned to re-evaluate the stimulus.
The stimulus is based on evidence, so you should suspect that the evidence is incomplete.
Also, the stimulus involves an analogy in the sense that it assumes that petting an animal for a few minutes is similar to owning one.
If you put those two together, you will realize that the reasoning is horrible. Owning a pet involves things such as caring for it, some of which might increase stress.
A good test of abstraction is that the stimulus ignores concepts such as "Too much of a good thing..." It might be over general, but it'll work. A better test might be: "It's fun to play with someone else's toys, so long as you can leave without cleaning up."
Answer choice (A): This choice is close, but the problem is that the person is different: a healthy versus a sick person. In the stimulus, the same person is involved the whole time. Furthermore, it fails the test of abstraction, because it doesn't involve ownership.
Answer choice (B): This reasoning is questionable, and certainly doesn't consider all the factors. And, the choice involves ownership. However, since there is no comparison between the short-term and long-term, and there is no assumed comparison between not owning and owning, you can eliminate this choice.
Answer choice (C): This choice does involve overdoing something, but not in the same way. For this response to be similar, it would have to be altered to something like "since pruning houseplants is enjoyable for some people, those people should buy many houseplants that demand pruning." See? The problem in the stimulus was that we might be overdoing it, not that we were necessarily eliminating other things. Also, there was no mention of plants that one does not own.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Just like the stimulus does, this choice assumes that cruising in a boat for a bit and actually owning it are comparable, and ignores the negative impact that the responsibilities of ownership might have on relaxation.
Answer choice (E): This response contains reasoning that is probably flawed, because one could simply use a thick enough coat the first time. Also, once something can be called "white" or "red" or "green," etc., it seems difficult to say that it could be made more that quality. If something can get whiter, it was not totally white in the first place. You might have thought that this choice could be similar, because you may have thought that beyond a certain point the effect of "petting" would be minimal. However, the stimulus is based on ignoring the potential negatives of ownership, but this response contains no reference to ownership. Furthermore, it is unlikely that using two coats of white paint will be counterproductive to making the fence white, so this choice does not ignore the same kind of potential negative.
Parallel Flaw-CE. The correct answer choice is (D)
The stimulus argues that since some of the people in a study had lowered blood pressure while petting animals, those people would have lower average blood pressure if they owned a pet.
If you didn't pick out a flaw, you should have noticed that the question stem mentions one, and returned to re-evaluate the stimulus.
The stimulus is based on evidence, so you should suspect that the evidence is incomplete.
Also, the stimulus involves an analogy in the sense that it assumes that petting an animal for a few minutes is similar to owning one.
If you put those two together, you will realize that the reasoning is horrible. Owning a pet involves things such as caring for it, some of which might increase stress.
A good test of abstraction is that the stimulus ignores concepts such as "Too much of a good thing..." It might be over general, but it'll work. A better test might be: "It's fun to play with someone else's toys, so long as you can leave without cleaning up."
Answer choice (A): This choice is close, but the problem is that the person is different: a healthy versus a sick person. In the stimulus, the same person is involved the whole time. Furthermore, it fails the test of abstraction, because it doesn't involve ownership.
Answer choice (B): This reasoning is questionable, and certainly doesn't consider all the factors. And, the choice involves ownership. However, since there is no comparison between the short-term and long-term, and there is no assumed comparison between not owning and owning, you can eliminate this choice.
Answer choice (C): This choice does involve overdoing something, but not in the same way. For this response to be similar, it would have to be altered to something like "since pruning houseplants is enjoyable for some people, those people should buy many houseplants that demand pruning." See? The problem in the stimulus was that we might be overdoing it, not that we were necessarily eliminating other things. Also, there was no mention of plants that one does not own.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. Just like the stimulus does, this choice assumes that cruising in a boat for a bit and actually owning it are comparable, and ignores the negative impact that the responsibilities of ownership might have on relaxation.
Answer choice (E): This response contains reasoning that is probably flawed, because one could simply use a thick enough coat the first time. Also, once something can be called "white" or "red" or "green," etc., it seems difficult to say that it could be made more that quality. If something can get whiter, it was not totally white in the first place. You might have thought that this choice could be similar, because you may have thought that beyond a certain point the effect of "petting" would be minimal. However, the stimulus is based on ignoring the potential negatives of ownership, but this response contains no reference to ownership. Furthermore, it is unlikely that using two coats of white paint will be counterproductive to making the fence white, so this choice does not ignore the same kind of potential negative.