bp shinners wrote:guano wrote:I don't actually see the flaw in the question. Please explain it to me like I were a 5 year old child
The problem is that the stimulus says, "Independent arbitration would avert a strike, but only if..." That's creating a world where something is necessary for independent arbitration to avert the strike, but it's not creating a world where nothing else can avert the strike.
It's like saying, "The Joker is planning to terrorize Gotham City. Batman would avert this rein of terror, but only if he doesn't have a swanky ball to attend. However, based on past experience, he will have a swanky ball to attend, so the Joker's rein of terror is likely."
The issue is that there are other heroes in the DC universe that can take out the Joker. Superman, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Green Arrow, even the Martian Manhunter; they could all stop his rein of terror. While you could make an argument that they might not be around, the conclusion should be that the Joker's rein of terror is possible, as it's not necessarily likely.
In short, I'm not buying the explanation of this as valid. They seem to hedge their bets even in the letter, saying that the reasoning isn't completely parallel. So I guess they're fine with shifting "Parallel" questions to "soft Parallel" questions, like "Must be True" vs. "Most Strongly Supported." Or they just messed up here and don't want to admit it. We'll have to see where this trend goes.
Your explanation is adding in conditionals that are not in the question