PT 16 LR 2 Q 15 Forum
-
Sandro
- Posts: 2525
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am
-
fosterp
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:09 am
Re: PT 16 LR 2 Q 15
I think the error in reasoning was that it was conferring the characteristic of tallness, which is a relative term, not absolute, from the subclass of tulips to the entire class of plants. Tulips on their own can be short and tall relative to other tulips, but nothing can be determined of their tallness relative to other plants, thus being a tall plant cannot be inferred from the facts given.
Sort of like, the only people in the first grade are children. All of the children in the first grade are tall children. Therefore all of the children in the first grade are tall people.
Answer C makes the same error with smallness of gorillas relative to other gorillas being applied to the entire class of primates, when the actual size of gorillas relative to other primates cannot be known.
Sort of like, the only people in the first grade are children. All of the children in the first grade are tall children. Therefore all of the children in the first grade are tall people.
Answer C makes the same error with smallness of gorillas relative to other gorillas being applied to the entire class of primates, when the actual size of gorillas relative to other primates cannot be known.
-
Sandro
- Posts: 2525
- Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 12:12 am
Re: PT 16 LR 2 Q 15
Thanks for that. I remember having to give it some thought when taking the pt but C seemed like a good fit because it used relative terms to describe the first group.
I can see this type of question being repeated in some form many times.
I can see this type of question being repeated in some form many times.
