PT 58 Sept 09 Section 4 Parallel Flaw Q22

msuz
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:17 am

PT 58 Sept 09 Section 4 Parallel Flaw Q22

Postby msuz » Thu Sep 22, 2011 12:09 pm

I dont see why the flaw in Answer A and C arent both the same exact thing.

A) "Recipe follow exactly" + "HQ ingredients" then "Recipe turns out." Flaw- Arthur followed recipe exactly and it turned out, so Arthur used HQ ingredients.

C) "Cacti in Shade" + "Watered 2x Weekly," then "it will Die." Flaw- Cactus kept in the shade and it is dead, so It must have been watered 2x weekly.

They both seem to follow "If A+B then C," with a flaw of "Since A+C happened, B happened."

Someone please explain why this isnt so?

lothsome
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:15 am

Re: PT 58 Sept 09 Section 4 Parallel Flaw Q22

Postby lothsome » Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:09 pm

I guess this one is pretty subtle, relatively speaking.

A says "only if:" "recipe will turn out only if..."

C does not.

The argument lacks the "only if" clause, therefore A, though the flaw is similar, is too strong, and C is the correct response.

msuz
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:17 am

Re: PT 58 Sept 09 Section 4 Parallel Flaw Q22

Postby msuz » Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:36 pm

hmm... so "only if" actually changes the argument to "if the recipe turns out," then Arthur "Followed the recipe exactly" + "used HQ ingredients?"

Whereas if it were to say "This recipe will turn out IF..." instead of "This recipe will turn out ONLY IF..." it would diagram as "Recipe follow exactly" + "HQ ingredients" then "Recipe turns out."

Just making sure, bc to solve these problems I usually use diagrams when Im stuck.

lothsome
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2011 11:15 am

Re: PT 58 Sept 09 Section 4 Parallel Flaw Q22

Postby lothsome » Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:50 pm

Yes, your evaluation is correct. This is a necessary vs sufficient question, so the way you have illustrated the relation captures everything crucial.

You might also think about it like this: in the argument, we are told that two things will cause the end result (successful book tour) to occur, but we cannot infer that such conditions are the only conditions that will lead to a successful tour. It could also be a successful author and good weather will suffice for a successful tour.

On the other hand, A tells us that the recipe turns out only in the circumstances that the recipe is followed and HQ ingredients are used. There are no other possibilities that would suffice, therefore it is necessary that if the recipe turns out, the recipe was followed and HQ ingredients were used.

msuz
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:17 am

Re: PT 58 Sept 09 Section 4 Parallel Flaw Q22

Postby msuz » Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:56 pm

Thanks a lot.

You dont run into this type of logic as much on the LR section as much as LG, so I guess it caught me off guard.

Obelisk18
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:34 pm

Re: PT 58 Sept 09 Section 4 Parallel Flaw Q22

Postby Obelisk18 » Thu Sep 22, 2011 1:59 pm

A isn't wrong "because it's too strong". It's wrong because it reverses the relationship. "Only if" always indicates that what follows is a necessary condition. So the first sentence of A turns out to be C => A+B. In the original, the first sentence is A+B=> C. Choice A isn't flawed.

msuz
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2011 11:17 am

Re: PT 58 Sept 09 Section 4 Parallel Flaw Q22

Postby msuz » Thu Sep 22, 2011 6:51 pm

Obelisk18 wrote:A isn't wrong "because it's too strong". It's wrong because it reverses the relationship. "Only if" always indicates that what follows is a necessary condition. So the first sentence of A turns out to be C => A+B. In the original, the first sentence is A+B=> C. Choice A isn't flawed.

Thats clear now. Thanks!




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests