#26 - Every Labrador retriever in my neighborhood is a

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw, SN. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[lsatryan]

Would you be able to post an explanation for this question? Thanks

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Ryan!

This stimulus involves a couple of conditional statements and then makes a causal conclusion. You could break it down like this:

Premise: Labrador in my neighborhood Well-behaved
Premise: Well-trained Well-behaved
You could take the contrapositive of that second premise and connect it to the first to get:
Labrador in my neighborhood Well-behaved Well-trained
Conclusion: Training, not breed, causes good behavior in labradors in my neighborhood

Essentially, the author concludes that since being well-trained is necessary for being well-behaved, that means training is the cause of good behavior.

In a Parallel question, the conclusion in the correct answer choice has to match the conclusion in the stimulus. Since we have a causal conclusion in the stimulus, we need a causal conclusion in the answer choices. Only answer choices (B) and (C) have causal conclusions.

Answer choice (B) could be broken down like this:

Premise: Snow Car crashes
Premise: Car crashes Careless
Combine the premises:
Snow Car crashes Careless
Conclusion: Carelessness, not icy roads, causes car crashes when it snows

This matches the structure of the argument in the stimulus. The author creates a chain that says that carelessness is necessary for car crashes and then concludes that carelessness causes car crashes.

Answer choice (C) can be broken down like this:

Premise: Musician I know Good dancer
Premise: Mathematician I know Good dancer
Combine the premises:
Musician I know Good dancer Mathematician I know
Conclusion: Rhythm, not ability to count, most responsible for good dancing.

This does not match the structure of the argument in the stimulus because the author does not conclude that because something is necessary for something else, that it is the cause of that something else. Also, "most" responsible is not quite as strong as saying that something is the cause.

Let us know if there are other answer choices you need help with, but the Double the Conclusion test eliminates a lot of answer choices quickly with this question!

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[bmc123]

Can you please explain why A does not have causal premises?

[Dave Killoran]

Hi bmc123,

Careful, Kelsey notes above that the causality is in the conclusion, and only (B) and (C) have that. If you look at the conclusion of (A), there is no causality in the conclusion there, which is why she rightly chose to bypass it.

Thanks!

[MarinaRae]

Is there an explanation why answer choice D would not result in a parallel conclusion? Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

There are a few problems with answer D, MarinaRae. First, our stimulus has two conditional premises that form a chain of three terms:

Labrador Retriever Well Behaved Trained

Answer D has just one conditional premise:

Good Cook Butter

Without the second conditional relationship added on, this isn't going to parallel the reasoning.

Then, take a look at the conclusions. In the stimulus, the conditional premises led to a causal conclusion, that training, rather than genetics, must be the cause of the good behavior (ignoring that training AND genetics could both play a role). The conclusion in answer D isn't causal at all, but remains conditional. For this one to work we would need the conclusion to say something like "thus it is butter, and not experience, that make's one a good cook." That's another good reason to reject this answer.

[Lincoln V]

Last question of the section and time restraints forced my hand, I had something like 40 seconds. I was between B and C and with seconds remaining, the phrases "in general" and " relatively" scared me off. In my mind it signaled inexact information akin to- more likely vs certainly.

Is degree of certainty in the premises irrelevant to finding parallel reasoning? Or am I simply misinterpreting phrases like "in general" etc.?

[mmoran]

I also was thrown off by the lack of certainty ("relativley", "in general") in present in answer B because the stimulus used stronger conditional language in its premise. I ended up picking B because all of the others seemed incorrect but was very drawn to C because it seemed to match the certainty of the stimulus better. How do I know when to match the certianty of conditional statements and when to ignore it? Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

Lincoln and mmoran,

We can actually see that "relatively" is not any lower in degree of certainty than necessity. Consider how modifiers that reduce degree of certainty work. "Most Greeks are Europeans" is less certain than "All Greeks are Europeans". "Therefore, it is likely that we will be forced to reduce taxes" is less certain than "Therefore, we must reduce taxes." In every case where the degree of certainty of a statement is less than necessity, there is a corresponding statement where the degree of certainty is absolute.

"Relatively more car crashes" has no way to make it any more certain. "Relatively more" just means "more". And look how certain that statement is - whenever it snows, there are more crashes. There's nothing in that any lower in degree of certainty than the maximum possible.

"In general" is ambiguous. It can be certain or it can express probability. So I wouldn't judge an answer solely on that basis.

I actually see language that is less than certainty, but it's in answer choice (C)! The conclusion says that rhythm is "most responsible". So between the two, degree of certainty really doesn't tell for answer choice (C) over answer choice (B). Kelsey's conditional analysis above in this thread makes clear why the structure of answer choice (B) is much better than that of answer choice (C).

Robert Carroll