Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?

youknowryan
Posts: 182
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am

Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?

Postby youknowryan » Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:45 pm

PT3, S2, #13. The stim and correct AC look to diagram as:

A->B
B->A

I am mis-diagramming or onto something?

User avatar
LSAT Blog
Posts: 1262
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?

Postby LSAT Blog » Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:36 pm

Your diagram and understanding of the stimulus is fine.

Flawed Parallel Reasoning is often not labeled as such.

See this post for more examples where it's not labeled in recent PrepTests.

User avatar
Ocean64
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm

Re: Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?

Postby Ocean64 » Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:50 pm

LSAT Blog wrote:Your diagram and understanding of the stimulus is fine.

Flawed Parallel Reasoning is often not labeled as such.

See this post for more examples where it's not labeled in recent PrepTests.


hey steve, i have a question about your article on PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), Section 3, Question 18, when i diagram the stimulus it comes out like this:

S==>M==>U==>A

therefore: S==>A

S= Science
M= Measuring
U= Selected Units of measurement
A= Arbitrary

so it seems valid to me on the basis of diagramming, as for part-to-whole i feel like it is weak in the face of a seemingly sound diagram. thoughts?




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”