Page 1 of 1
Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 5:45 pm
by youknowryan
PT3, S2, #13. The stim and correct AC look to diagram as:
A->B
B->A
I am mis-diagramming or onto something?
Re: Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?
Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2011 6:36 pm
by LSAT Blog
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.
Re: Flawed Parallel Reasoning Not Labeled As Such?
Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:50 pm
by Ocean64
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.
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:
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?