Top Law Schools

Isn't the stim in 40.3.25 flawed, even though it shouldn't be? I read it as:

A -> B -> C
____________
/A (or A very unlikely)

So clearly /C is missing, which makes it a flawed argument, no? I ask because it's parallel reasoning, not a parallel flaw question, so I was surprised that it had a flawed stim. I thought if the stim was flawed, the stem always indicated "flawed reasoning." Did this only become standard after PT 40?

Err, no.

Think of it like an assumption question for a quick second.

You get A->B->C

Then the conclusion says A is unlikely. Therefore, you can safely assume that must be because C is highly unlikely, since the B->C is used as contrary evidence.

Parallel reason questions do not necessarily have to have a fully thought out argument structure. They just have to lack an egregiously wrong argument/logic structure.

magickware wrote:
Parallel reason questions do not necessarily have to have a fully thought out argument structure. They just have to lack an egregiously wrong argument/logic structure.

Hmmm. This really struck me as an odd stim for a parallel question. Really feel like in the 60s at least (and maybe the 50s), we don't find big missing assumptions like that. Not a big deal, but it's been a while since one of these tripped me up, and I think it may be that it seemed less airtight than the ones I've seen lately.

It is commonly believed that LSAC has gotten a lot better at writing their tests some 20 years or so into it =P

Yeah it's interesting. When I first started studying, I liked the older LRs more because I could kind of go by feel. Now as I've gotten better at them, and rely on structure more than substance, I find the recent ones much easier than the older ones. See, for example, 40.3.25.

vuthy wrote:

magickware wrote:
Parallel reason questions do not necessarily have to have a fully thought out argument structure. They just have to lack an egregiously wrong argument/logic structure.

Hmmm. This really struck me as an odd stim for a parallel question. Really feel like in the 60s at least (and maybe the 50s), we don't find big missing assumptions like that. Not a big deal, but it's been a while since one of these tripped me up, and I think it may be that it seemed less airtight than the ones I've seen lately.

This is not true. A parallel question can definitely have a flaw in it.

bp shinners wrote:

vuthy wrote:

magickware wrote:
Parallel reason questions do not necessarily have to have a fully thought out argument structure. They just have to lack an egregiously wrong argument/logic structure.

Hmmm. This really struck me as an odd stim for a parallel question. Really feel like in the 60s at least (and maybe the 50s), we don't find big missing assumptions like that. Not a big deal, but it's been a while since one of these tripped me up, and I think it may be that it seemed less airtight than the ones I've seen lately.

This is not true. A parallel question can definitely have a flaw in it.

Just to be clear, I know a parallel question can have a flaw in it. But I was under the impression that in parallel flaws, the stem indicates "flawed reasoning." Are you saying that parallel questions can have a flawed argument without the stem indicating that the argument is flawed? I'm almost 100% certain that's not true, but now you have me second guessing.

vuthy wrote:

bp shinners wrote:

vuthy wrote:

magickware wrote:
Parallel reason questions do not necessarily have to have a fully thought out argument structure. They just have to lack an egregiously wrong argument/logic structure.

Hmmm. This really struck me as an odd stim for a parallel question. Really feel like in the 60s at least (and maybe the 50s), we don't find big missing assumptions like that. Not a big deal, but it's been a while since one of these tripped me up, and I think it may be that it seemed less airtight than the ones I've seen lately.

This is not true. A parallel question can definitely have a flaw in it.

Just to be clear, I know a parallel question can have a flaw in it. But I was under the impression that in parallel flaws, the stem indicates "flawed reasoning." Are you saying that parallel questions can have a flawed argument without the stem indicating that the argument is flawed? I'm almost 100% certain that's not true, but now you have me second guessing.

Check out PT 31, Section 3, Number 18. I was just going over it while reviewing my parallel reasoning drilling. It can be argued that that stimulus is flawed, even though the stem doesn't mention that it is.

Edited for better diction.

vuthy wrote:Are you saying that parallel questions can have a flawed argument without the stem indicating that the argument is flawed?

Yes.

vuthy wrote:Just to be clear, I know a parallel question can have a flaw in it. But I was under the impression that in parallel flaws, the stem indicates "flawed reasoning." Are you saying that parallel questions can have a flawed argument without the stem indicating that the argument is flawed? I'm almost 100% certain that's not true, but now you have me second guessing.

In my vague recollection (without looking back over specific examples) questions that ask for parallel reasoning without mentioning flawed reasoning aren't always perfectly airtight arguments, but they tend not to be as deeply flawed as questions where they specifically mention flaws.

At the same time, though, I'd recommend not thinking about these questions this way. Just isolate the structure of the stim, and find something that matches.

the_pakalypse wrote:

vuthy wrote:Are you saying that parallel questions can have a flawed argument without the stem indicating that the argument is flawed?

Yes.

Can anyone point to an example since, say, PT 60 of a parallel flaw question that did not indicate "flawed" reasoning in the stem? I know there are older ones, but honestly I can't recall seeing that move on any of the modern tests.

(Should add that this is really a marginal issue and I don't think it's affected my LR at all. But now I'm very curious.)

the_pakalypse wrote:

vuthy wrote:Are you saying that parallel questions can have a flawed argument without the stem indicating that the argument is flawed?

Yes.

It's important to note, though, that these are still parallel questions, not parallel flaw questions. So everything you know about parallel questions still applies - the burden for a correct answer is much higher than it would be in a parallel flaw question, where just the flaw has to match up.