#23 - A spy fails by being caught, and it is normally only

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (B).

In approaching a Parallel Reasoning question, your first step is to analyze the argument. Once you fully understand the mechanics of the stimulus argument, it becomes much easier to recognize the answer choice argument that matches that same structure. This argument says that since we only have data about the spies who have failed and not the spies who are successful, we can learn a lot about what makes a spy fail but not much about what makes a spy successful. To put that in abstract terms, the argument is basically saying that we may know a lot about things that are revealed, but we don't know much about things that are left unrevealed. We're looking for an argument below that matches that same basic abstraction.

Answer choice (A): This answer choices introduces the idea of non-participation which results in neither success or failure. But it doesn't have anything to do with knowing about things that are revealed versus not knowing about things that are unrevealed.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice is the only one that addresses the idea of knowing more about things that are revealed as compared to things that are unrevealed. In this case, it is unconscious motives that usually remain unrevealed. Since we're only aware of conscious motives but rarely of unconscious motives, we're more likely to learn about people's conscious motives. This is similar to the argument above: since we're only aware of the failed spies, we're more likely to learn about spy failure than spy success. It's not a perfect match for our above argument, but it is definitely better than any of the other answer choices.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice is about having a measurable goal and defining criteria (which is not in our stimulus) and it has nothing to do with revealed/unrevealed information.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice is about definitions and classifications, which are not in the stimulus, and again it lacks the idea of revealed/unrevealed information.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice is about things that do not happen. The stimulus is about things that remain unrevealed. There are still successful spies, we just don't know about their methods because since they are successful, those methods remain unrevealed to us. An argument about not knowing about things that do not happen is not the same as an argument about not knowing about things that are hidden.

[lsatstudent]

Why is E incorrect?

Thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi lsatstudent,

Thanks for your question!

We'll be happy to help you figure out the optimal approach to this question, but first could you provide us with a more detailed breakdown of how you understood the argument? Doing so will not only help us explain this problem for you, but also allow us to see if there is anything in your approach that should be changed. Thus, any insight you can give us in the following areas would be extremely helpful:

• Your deconstruction of the premises/conclusion.
• You analysis of whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises, and if not - why not?
• Your identification of the type of question in the stem.
• Your prephrase to the question stem (don't be afraid if your prephrase was off - we still need to see what it was).
• Your analysis and thoughts on the (incorrect) answer choice.

The more you tell us about your method of approach, the better we can help you figure out this problem.

Thanks!

[ph28801]

Hello, Nikki!

I am not the original poster, but I am struggling with this question and would like your help. On the practice test, I chose answer E. I am still struggling to figure out exactly why answer B is correct.

Does this have to do with data or information? The information about unconscious motives are skewed because we are likely to hear about people's conscious motives. In answer choice E, the information about non-interventions cannot be skewed because these non-interventions never happen.

As you can probably gather, I am fairly lost on this question. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Patrick

[Adam Tyson]

Another good question, Patrick! Parallel Reasoning questions can be approached a number of ways, often with multiple approaches happening in tandem. One way is to "double" the conclusion - look for an answer that has a conclusion with language that is very similar to the language of the stimulus, in that it has the same degree of strength and certainty. Here, our stimulus has language that compares two things to one another and determines that one is more difficult than another (we can learn a lot about one thing but very little about the other). That's a conclusion about probability rather than certainty or possibility, and it's about facts rather than opinions or value judgments. Answer B has this same degree of comparison in its conclusion (we are more likely to hear about one thing than another), and is likewise about probability and facts rather than certainty and opinions. Answer E, on the other hand, is entirely certain - one alternative is possible to know and the other is impossible. There is no probability element to the conclusion, so it does not "double" or parallel our answer in that regard.

Another approach that you might use here is to consider the abstract structure of the argument. Stripping away the details, the stimulus says something like "we have a lot of info about X, and very little about Y, so it's easier to learn about x than about Y". That structure is mirrored in answer B, but not in answer E. E's structure is more like "we know about X, but we can't even investigate Y, so we can't know about Y."

Using these approaches together is a powerful way to analyze this question. Other techniques involve doubling the premises (to be sure you have the same number and type or premises), checking the validity of the stimulus against that of the answer choices (a good argument cannot be parallel to an invalid one, and vice versa), and the type of reasoning used (if the stimulus argues by way of analogy, for example, so must the correct answer).

If you have our full-length course books, check out the lesson on Parallel Reasoning to get some practice dealing with these question types.

Good luck, Patrick!

[ava17]

Hi,

I eliminated B because it said "more likely" whereas the stimulus didn't have a probability conclusion. Why is that wrong?

[Brook Miscoski]

ava17,

This parallel question can be frustrating, and the way I approached it may help you.

The stimulus asserts that we learn more about methods that become known than about those that are kept secret.

A. Non-participants is a new, third group. Very dissimilar.
B. Fairly similar to the stimulus except the "usually."
C. Stimulus wasn't about definitions.
D. Stimulus wasn't about definitions.
E. Stimulus was about what remains unknown, not about what never happens.

Even though B is imperfect, it is the only choice that comes close to paralleling the stimulus.

[Moukieroo]

I was having trouble this because I was getting too caught up with diagramming in a traditional sense but then I realized this is probably very doable if we get a little abstract!

Stimulus Argument:
SPIES
FAIL ------------------------------------SUCEED
Caught ---------------------------------not Caught
++Learn More---------------------------------~~Learn Less

Correct Answer:

MOTIVES
Aware ------------------------------------UnAware
Can Talk ---------------------------------Cannot Talk
++Hear(know)----------------------~~Can't Hear(don't know)

all of the elements were there and it just popped out as the right answer

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Moukieroo!

You're absolutely correct that you don't need to use conditional diagramming to figure out this stimulus and the correct answer! As Adam and Brook mention above, looking at the abstract structure of the argument is probably the quickest way to get to the correct answer. So while there are conditional statements that you could diagram, it's more efficient to just say that basically the argument is saying that because we only know about one side of a situation (failed spies/conscious thoughts), we're much more likely to know about that side than we are the side which we don't hear about (successful spies/unconscious thoughts).

Best,
Kelsey

[vbkehs]

I chose E because the language in the stimulus mentions that "a successful spy is never caught."' I equated "never" in the stimulus with "impossible" in E - the strength of both terms seem to match, while B says "usually impossible" which seems to leave room for possibility. Can you please explain why E is wrong from this standpoint?

Here's the stimulus for convenience:

A spy fails by being caught, and it is normally only through being caught that spies reveal their methods. The successful spy is never caught. So the available data are skewed: One can learn a lot about what makes a spy fail but very little about what makes a spy succeed.

B) People who are aware of their motives can articulate them. But unconscious motives are usually impossible to acknowledge. So people are more likely to hear about other people’s conscious motives than their unconscious ones.

E) Because someone intervened in the conflict, the effects of that intervention can be discerned. But since no one can investigate what does not happen, it is impossible to discern what would have happened had someone not intervened.