## Quantifiers in Parallel Flaw Questions

Prepare for the LSAT or discuss it with others in this forum.
dlrkgml

Posts: 74
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2011 12:51 am

### Quantifiers in Parallel Flaw Questions

Hello, I am confused by the importance of quantifiers in parallel flaw questions.

In explaining #32 of Section 4 on the October 2000 test (Preptest 32), Blueprint stated that although the stimulus never used the word "most," the inclusion of this word in the correct answer choice (A) should not deter us from picking (A) because this answer choice contains the same fallacy as the stimulus. Blueprint said that since these questions ask us to find the parallel fallacy, quantifiers should not matter as much.

But in explaining #22 of Section 4 on the December 2003 test (Preptest 42), Blueprint ruled out three of the answer choices on the basis that answers (B), (C), and (D) either had no quantifier (B), or used a quantifier different from the stimulus (C) (D).

Which is correct? How important are quantifiers in eliminating answer choices in parallel flaw questions?

slingshot_fuel

Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:37 pm

### Re: Quantifiers in Parallel Flaw Questions

I had the same problem trying to understand this discrepancy. You should only zero in on indicator and/or relational words on parallel reasoning questions. Parallel flaw questions do NOT test this! First and foremost, find the logical flaw. Then, attempt to visualize and understand the principle underlying this logical flaw. Then, go to the answer choices and search for the same committed flaw. I have seen numerous parallel flaw questions that seem to trap test takers into choosing an incorrect answer by simply matching key indicator words from the stimulus. Keep in mind that the correct answer can easily commit the exact same logical flaw without using any of the similar comparative indicator words. I have even noticed that the stimulus will sometimes contain a conditional statement with an "AND/OR" necessary or sufficient statement, and the credited answer choice will NOT have an "AND/OR" statement. Keep in mind that a logical flaw committed in the stimulus (ie: illegal reversal or negation), can be paralleled in the correct answer choice with or without using "AND/OR" statements.

Hope this helps...

neprep

Posts: 1066
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:16 pm

### Re: Quantifiers in Parallel Flaw Questions

dlrkgml wrote:Hello, I am confused by the importance of quantifiers in parallel flaw questions.

In explaining #32 of Section 4 on the October 2000 test (Preptest 32), Blueprint stated that although the stimulus never used the word "most," the inclusion of this word in the correct answer choice (A) should not deter us from picking (A) because this answer choice contains the same fallacy as the stimulus. Blueprint said that since these questions ask us to find the parallel fallacy, quantifiers should not matter as much.

But in explaining #22 of Section 4 on the December 2003 test (Preptest 42), Blueprint ruled out three of the answer choices on the basis that answers (B), (C), and (D) either had no quantifier (B), or used a quantifier different from the stimulus (C) (D).

Which is correct? How important are quantifiers in eliminating answer choices in parallel flaw questions?

I don't think one way is correct over the other universally; it varies by question. The general task in these questions is to find the argument that, in its reasoning, is most similar to the argument in the stimulus.

In some questions, you will not find a perfect match even in the right answer choice (same flaw, same structure, same quantifiers), and you have to then forget about the quantifier words and assume a more big picture view.

In other questions, two or three answer choices have the same flaw as the stimulus, but one or two of them are clearly wrong because they do not match the quantifier qualifications in the stimulus. In these cases, focus on the quantifiers and other nitty-gritty.

Oh by the way, if you have a question about Blueprint's text, you should post it in the bp shinners thread because he would be in the best place to walk you through their explanations.

JazzOne

Posts: 2979
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 11:04 am

### Re: Quantifiers in Parallel Flaw Questions

neprep wrote:
dlrkgml wrote:Hello, I am confused by the importance of quantifiers in parallel flaw questions.

In explaining #32 of Section 4 on the October 2000 test (Preptest 32), Blueprint stated that although the stimulus never used the word "most," the inclusion of this word in the correct answer choice (A) should not deter us from picking (A) because this answer choice contains the same fallacy as the stimulus. Blueprint said that since these questions ask us to find the parallel fallacy, quantifiers should not matter as much.

But in explaining #22 of Section 4 on the December 2003 test (Preptest 42), Blueprint ruled out three of the answer choices on the basis that answers (B), (C), and (D) either had no quantifier (B), or used a quantifier different from the stimulus (C) (D).

Which is correct? How important are quantifiers in eliminating answer choices in parallel flaw questions?

I don't think one way is correct over the other universally; it varies by question. The general task in these questions is to find the argument that, in its reasoning, is most similar to the argument in the stimulus.

In some questions, you will not find a perfect match even in the right answer choice (same flaw, same structure, same quantifiers), and you have to then forget about the quantifier words and assume a more big picture view.

In other questions, two or three answer choices have the same flaw as the stimulus, but one or two of them are clearly wrong because they do not match the quantifier qualifications in the stimulus. In these cases, focus on the quantifiers and other nitty-gritty.

Oh by the way, if you have a question about Blueprint's text, you should post it in the bp shinners thread because he would be in the best place to walk you through their explanations.

I disagree with neprep. Parallel reasoning questions are different from parallel flaw questions.

For parallel reasoning questions, you are simply looking for the argument that is most similar in it's reasoning to the original argument. The quantifiers are important for comparing the logic of the arguments.

For parallel flaw questions, however, you should focus on the fallacy of the argument. The credited response will make the same type of fallacy, even if the logic of the argument is slightly different. I cannot think of one parallel flaw question where multiple answer choices duplicate the fallacy of the original argument. In my experience, only one answer choice commits the same type of fallacy as the original argument. The quantifiers are less important in parallel flaw questions, unless the quantifier is the source of the flaw. I cannot think of an example where that's the case though.

neprep

Posts: 1066
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:16 pm

### Re: Quantifiers in Parallel Flaw Questions

JazzOne wrote:
neprep wrote:
dlrkgml wrote:Hello, I am confused by the importance of quantifiers in parallel flaw questions.

In explaining #32 of Section 4 on the October 2000 test (Preptest 32), Blueprint stated that although the stimulus never used the word "most," the inclusion of this word in the correct answer choice (A) should not deter us from picking (A) because this answer choice contains the same fallacy as the stimulus. Blueprint said that since these questions ask us to find the parallel fallacy, quantifiers should not matter as much.

But in explaining #22 of Section 4 on the December 2003 test (Preptest 42), Blueprint ruled out three of the answer choices on the basis that answers (B), (C), and (D) either had no quantifier (B), or used a quantifier different from the stimulus (C) (D).

Which is correct? How important are quantifiers in eliminating answer choices in parallel flaw questions?

I don't think one way is correct over the other universally; it varies by question. The general task in these questions is to find the argument that, in its reasoning, is most similar to the argument in the stimulus.

In some questions, you will not find a perfect match even in the right answer choice (same flaw, same structure, same quantifiers), and you have to then forget about the quantifier words and assume a more big picture view.

In other questions, two or three answer choices have the same flaw as the stimulus, but one or two of them are clearly wrong because they do not match the quantifier qualifications in the stimulus. In these cases, focus on the quantifiers and other nitty-gritty.

Oh by the way, if you have a question about Blueprint's text, you should post it in the bp shinners thread because he would be in the best place to walk you through their explanations.

I disagree with neprep. Parallel reasoning questions are different from parallel flaw questions.

For parallel reasoning questions, you are simply looking for the argument that is most similar in it's reasoning to the original argument. The quantifiers are important for comparing the logic of the arguments.

For parallel flaw questions, however, you should focus on the fallacy of the argument. The credited response will make the same type of fallacy, even if the logic of the argument is slightly different. I cannot think of one parallel flaw question where multiple answer choices duplicate the fallacy of the original argument. In my experience, only one answer choice commits the same type of fallacy as the original argument. The quantifiers are less important in parallel flaw questions, unless the quantifier is the source of the flaw. I cannot think of an example where that's the case though.

This is actually what I meant. So I guess I would rephrase my original response by qualifying that only one answer choice replicates the flaw, and the other ones don't; it might be important to pay attention to these quantifiers in those cases in which the quantifier is the source of the flaw. I also cannot think of any, nor did I have an example in mind when writing my post. But I just thought such a case is possible.

bp shinners

Posts: 3086
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:05 pm

### Re: Quantifiers in Parallel Flaw Questions

dlrkgml wrote:Which is correct? How important are quantifiers in eliminating answer choices in parallel flaw questions?

It depends .

I do wish that the books were a little clearer on this point, so hopefully I can shed some light here.

First off, parallel questions and parallel flaw questions are different. For parallel questions, every element has to align, so the quantifiers from the stimulus have to match the quantifiers in the correct answer choice.

Second off, for parallel flaw questions, you need to match the flaw, and that's it.

So why the discrepancy? Because sometimes the quantifiers matter to the flaw; sometimes they don't. For example, if the flaw is a sampling fallacy, then the quantifiers don't matter. If the flaw is a logical force fallacy, then the quantifiers do matter. The quantifiers must be a reason for the argument to be flawed before you can use them to pick/eliminate answer choices in a parallel flaw question.

So let's look at the two in question:
PT32;S4;Q21 (I'm assuming this is the one you're talking about)
The flaw in the stimulus is a flaw of relativity. I know that training in statistics is necessary to understand the applications of statistics, which is part of experimental psychology; from that, I conclude that more training leads to being better at this research. So the flaw is that just because something is necessary doesn't mean that there is a scale where being better at it makes you better at research (the thing for which the training is necessary). The flaw has nothing to do with the logical force associated with the size of the group; I could be talking about some researchers, most researchers, or all researchers and the flaw would still be that jump between being necessary and being something that scales.

Additionally (a side point here) - (A) avoids having a logical force fallacy itself by having that "most" be reflected in the conclusion of that answer choice ("in most cases")

PT42.S4.Q22
The flaw in this stimulus is a logical force fallacy. If I changed the quantifiers in this argument, I could make it valid. Since the quantifiers here are a part of the flaw, I need those same quantifiers to show up in my answer choice.

So how important are quantifiers in eliminating answers? If the flaw is one of logical force (the quantifiers are a part of the flaw), then they're absolutely important. If the flaw isn't one that relies on the quantifiers, then they're completely unimportant, but will show up in trap answer choices.