Top Law Schools

Seems like it should be easy to me, but it's not clicking. Parallel reasoning question.

Stimulus: "The only plants in the garden were tulips, but they were tall tulips. So the only plants in the garden were tall plants."

Question stem: Which of the following exhibits the same faulty reasoning as the stimulus?

Correct answer (C.): "All the primates in the zoo were gorillas. The only gorillas in the zoo were small gorillas. Thus the only primates in the zoo were small primates."

What is the faulty reasoning? Both of those statements seem logical to me. What am I missing? Thanks.

I might have just figured it out, let me know what you think about this hypothetical:

"The only humans in the school were toddlers, but they were tall toddlers. So the only humans in the school were tall." -- In actuality, even tall toddlers are short with respect to all humans, so the reasoning here is flawed.

Idk--still seems utterly confusing to me. If the statement says they are tall, they ARE tall, irrespective of what 'tall' is describing, no?

Is this the flaw they are getting at? Or am I still missing something?

No, I think you're picking (C) for the right reason - "tall" and "small" are both subjective descriptions, and just as a "tall" tulip might not be "tall" compared to plants in general, a "small" gorilla might not be small compared to primates in general.

(A) and (D) aren't flawed - "black" is "black", and "ripe" is "ripe", so you don't have the same "subjective term" problem.

(B) is on the right track, but it's not as nicely parallel as (C), because it brings in office buildings AND residential towers.

(E) is flawed, but it's flawed because it overreaches beyond what's "here" and tries to say that ALL large things are heavy. It's also not parallel in that there *could* be other large objects here that aren't grand pianos, while the stimulus makes it clear that the only plants in the garden are tulips.