PT3, S2, #13. The stim and correct AC look to diagram as:
A->B
B->A
I am mis-diagramming or onto something?
Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such? Forum
-
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 3:20 am
- LSAT Blog
- Posts: 1257
- Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 9:24 pm
Re: Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?
Your diagram and understanding of the stimulus is fine.
Flawed Parallel Reasoning is often not labeled as such.
See this post for more examples where it's not labeled in recent PrepTests.
Flawed Parallel Reasoning is often not labeled as such.
See this post for more examples where it's not labeled in recent PrepTests.
- Ocean64
- Posts: 125
- Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:53 pm
Re: Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?
hey steve, i have a question about your article on PrepTest 31 (June 2000 LSAT), Section 3, Question 18, when i diagram the stimulus it comes out like this:LSAT Blog wrote:Your diagram and understanding of the stimulus is fine.
Flawed Parallel Reasoning is often not labeled as such.
See this post for more examples where it's not labeled in recent PrepTests.
S==>M==>U==>A
therefore: S==>A
S= Science
M= Measuring
U= Selected Units of measurement
A= Arbitrary
so it seems valid to me on the basis of diagramming, as for part-to-whole i feel like it is weak in the face of a seemingly sound diagram. thoughts?