Is the LRB Parallel Flaw method misleading? Ex. PT34 S3Q23 Forum

[yzero1]

Just finished taking PT34 today and I came upon a parallel flaw question that seems to (partially) refute the LRB's method of attacking parallel flaw questions.

According to the LRB, the following aspects of a stimulus MUST be paralleled in the correct answer:

1. Method of Reasoning
2. Validity of Argument
3. Conclusion
4. Premises

Specifically, for paralleling the conclusion, the LRB says that you must match the certaintly level or intent of the conclusion in the stimulus (ex. must/never/always will be matched to similar absolutes in the answer's conclusion).

Now, look at PT 34, S3 Q 23. The conclusion in the stimulus uses the words "must tend to be" where as the conclusion in the correct answer, (D), uses the words "surely journalists always use ". The certainty levels do not match (tend to vs. always).

So, is paralleling the certainty level of the conclusion a misleading way to eliminate incorrect answer choices or is this question a very rare exception?

Or, alternatively, am I missing something?

[fosterp]

Just finished taking PT34 today and I came upon a parallel flaw question that seems to (partially) refute the LRB's method of attacking parallel flaw questions.

According to the LRB, the following aspects of a stimulus MUST be paralleled in the correct answer:

1. Method of Reasoning
2. Validity of Argument
3. Conclusion
4. Premises

Specifically, for paralleling the conclusion, the LRB says that you must match the certaintly level or intent of the conclusion in the stimulus (ex. must/never/always will be matched to similar absolutes in the answer's conclusion).

Now, look at PT 34, S3 Q 23. The conclusion in the stimulus uses the words "must tend to be" where as the conclusion in the correct answer, (D), uses the words "surely journalists always use ". The certainty levels do not match (tend to vs. always).

So, is paralleling the certainty level of the conclusion a misleading way to eliminate incorrect answer choices or is this question a very rare exception?

Or, alternatively, am I missing something?

Your interpreting tend in a different way than its written in context of the stim. Its basically saying society can only go in one of two directions - fragmenting towards isolation, or not fragmenting towards unification. It can tend to become more fragmented, or tend to unified (not becoming fragmented). Tend is used to sort of describe the fragmentation. Society tends to slowly deterioriate, rather than explode in a mushroom cloud. Tend is used as a word that describes inclination towards one or the other, but not to a high extreem. The low degree of inclination might seem that you could interpret it to mean that it could go the other way, but I doubt the test makers see it that way, sort of the same way they mean some to mean only at least 1, when in the real world we usually always mean more than 1.

At least, that's the way I see it. In that question though the argument form is so off in the other answers that D is a pretty clear choice. E uses the same words, however the argument is a valid one, and the stim has a flawed argument.

[yzero1]

Just finished taking PT34 today and I came upon a parallel flaw question that seems to (partially) refute the LRB's method of attacking parallel flaw questions.

According to the LRB, the following aspects of a stimulus MUST be paralleled in the correct answer:

1. Method of Reasoning
2. Validity of Argument
3. Conclusion
4. Premises

Specifically, for paralleling the conclusion, the LRB says that you must match the certaintly level or intent of the conclusion in the stimulus (ex. must/never/always will be matched to similar absolutes in the answer's conclusion).

Now, look at PT 34, S3 Q 23. The conclusion in the stimulus uses the words "must tend to be" where as the conclusion in the correct answer, (D), uses the words "surely journalists always use ". The certainty levels do not match (tend to vs. always).

So, is paralleling the certainty level of the conclusion a misleading way to eliminate incorrect answer choices or is this question a very rare exception?

Or, alternatively, am I missing something?

Your interpreting tend in a different way than its written in context of the stim. Its basically saying society can only go in one of two directions - fragmenting towards isolation, or not fragmenting towards unification. It can tend to become more fragmented, or tend to unified (not becoming fragmented). Tend is used to sort of describe the fragmentation. Society tends to slowly deterioriate, rather than explode in a mushroom cloud. Tend is used as a word that describes inclination towards one or the other, but not to a high extreem. The low degree of inclination might seem that you could interpret it to mean that it could go the other way, but I doubt the test makers see it that way, sort of the same way they mean some to mean only at least 1, when in the real world we usually always mean more than 1.

At least, that's the way I see it. In that question though the argument form is so off in the other answers that D is a pretty clear choice. E uses the same words, however the argument is a valid one, and the stim has a flawed argument.

I see what you're saying. Essentially, the logical opposite of "invariably fragment" is "tend to be socially unified," which is equivalent to "not invariably fragment". So the argument in the stimulus is using the logical opposite of the premise in the conclusion.

I think what confused me was that the logical opposition was reversed in the correct answer (D). It takes the phrase "frequently convey thoughts via nonliteral language" and opposes it with "always use language literally" - essentially a some/many vs. none opposition.

So, in the stimulus, the logical opposition was ALL vs. NOT ALL, where as in the correct answer, the opposition was SOME vs. NONE. I guess the direction of the opposition doesn't have to remain the same - just the opposition itself.

Did that make sense?

[Gemini]

Hi I thought this stim to be a Mistaken Negation. (D) is also a mistaken negation.

What sucks about parallel reasoning to me is that you can't be sure WHAT exactly to parallel. I usually parallel method of argument but once there was a correct answer that didn't match the stim premise for premise and it confused me. (PT 33, sec3, q18)

Anyway, for this question stim:

Measured in financial terms --> inv. fragment
CONC: ~ Measured in fin. terms --> ~ fragment


(D):
Poet --> use nonliteral language
CONC: ~ Poet --> ~ use non literal language (aka use literal lang).

Sorry if I resurrected something you've figured out by now.