Parallel Flaw/Reasoning order of elements

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Parallel Flaw/Reasoning order of elements

Postby MissLucky » Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:03 pm

Hey,

So I was under the impression that in Parallel Flaw questions and even in general Parallel Reasoning questions, the order does not really matter, as long as the same reasoning pattern is there.

However, in PT54, S4, Q8, there is a P. Flaw question (very simple and straightforward) whose flawed structure is basically: a characteristic of a whole allows us to conclude that each part of that whole has the same characteristic.

I did pick (C) on this one, but I definitely hesitated because I wasn't sure that "the most sophisticated and the most expensive ever built" in the evidence, was the same thing as "the most sophisticated and the most expensive available" in the conclusion. I was thinking, well, maybe things that are built are not available. How did you confidently latch onto this choice?

That hesitation got me to considering (D) even more. (D) has the same flaw as the stimulus (and with none of the shifts in language that made me hesitant about C), but it reverses the placement - arguing from part to whole (rather than from whole to part as in the stimulus).

I was waffling between the two because (C)'s shift in terminology was bothering me, and (D) truly did exhibit the same flawed reasoning (even though the placement was different).

So why did placement matter here? Why and when does placement allow us to eliminate an otherwise good match? Is it because the flaw is not just some general issue of arguing from whole to part or part to whole, but because it is very specifically the issue of arguing FROM whole TO part. period. ? Does the whole idea of ignoring ordering only apply to the evidence and not to the reasoning structure as a whole?

any insight would be appreciated.

thank u

User avatar
s254w
Posts: 105
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:02 pm

Re: Parallel Flaw/Reasoning order of elements

Postby s254w » Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:07 pm

My impression is that in flaw questions the order matters.

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Parallel Flaw/Reasoning order of elements

Postby suspicious android » Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:39 pm

You're right that the order of the elements doesn't matter. However, the error in the stimulus and (D) is slightly different.

The stimulus asserts that the whole (department) has a certain quality (efficiency). It then concludes that each part must have that same quality. Clearly invalid reasoning, as you noted.

Answer choice (D) asserts that the parts (chapters) each has a certain quality (highly praised). It then concludes that the whole must have that same quality. Clearly invalid, but part to whole is a different flaw than whole to part. Additionally, I think that there is flawed reasoning in assuming that "critics lavishing praise" would be lead to a valid conclusion that the book was in fact excellent. This flaw is not in the stimulus, so that's another reason to eliminate (D).

I like parallel reasoning questions, they really let you get into the mind of the writers of the LSAT.

MissLucky
Posts: 903
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:48 pm

Re: Parallel Flaw/Reasoning order of elements

Postby MissLucky » Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:45 pm

suspicious android wrote:You're right that the order of the elements doesn't matter. However, the error in the stimulus and (D) is slightly different.

The stimulus asserts that the whole (department) has a certain quality (efficiency). It then concludes that each part must have that same quality. Clearly invalid reasoning, as you noted.

Answer choice (D) asserts that the parts (chapters) each has a certain quality (highly praised). It then concludes that the whole must have that same quality. Clearly invalid, but part to whole is a different flaw than whole to part. Additionally, I think that there is flawed reasoning in assuming that "critics lavishing praise" would be lead to a valid conclusion that the book was in fact excellent. This flaw is not in the stimulus, so that's another reason to eliminate (D).

I like parallel reasoning questions, they really let you get into the mind of the writers of the LSAT.


bolded part - exactly what I was looking for, thank you!
underlined part - nice work, i don't know how i didn't catch that - you are absolutely right...ha, now that I look back on it (D) was pretty sucky

Thank you :D

User avatar
suspicious android
Posts: 938
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Parallel Flaw/Reasoning order of elements

Postby suspicious android » Mon Oct 04, 2010 3:53 pm

MissLucky wrote:bolded part - exactly what I was looking for, thank you!
underlined part - nice work, i don't know how i didn't catch that - you are absolutely right...ha, now that I look back on it (D) was pretty sucky

Thank you :D


No problem, these are the most fun problems to go over, I think.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 88234, bearedman8, cherrygalore, Greenteachurro, HydroFlask666, Instrumental and 12 guests