#14 - Every time people get what they want they feel

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)

Because pleasure results from getting what we want, the author concludes that no one can want anything except pleasure. This is clearly a flawed argument, but it is important to pause and understand why. The causation underlying the premise can be diagrammed as follows:

• Cause Effect
  
  Get what one wants Pleasure

Just because getting what we want naturally causes pleasure does not necessarily mean that the purpose of our actions is to obtain pleasure. Pleasure may be an incidental effect of our actions, not a goal in and of itself. The conclusion assumes a transferred intent. Working long hours causes fatigue. Do we want fatigue? To use the Test of Abstraction, the argument can be summarized as follows:

• Premise: A naturally causes B.
  
  Conclusion: If we do A, it means that we want B.

Understanding this flaw will help you eliminate four of the answer choices relatively easily.

Answer choice (A): The conclusion in this argument is somewhat similar to the conclusion in the stimulus, because both assume that a particular result was intended (even if it wasn’t). However, the premise (“I am enjoying the party”) does not contain the causal relationship we are looking to match. Using the Premise Test, this answer choice can be eliminated relatively quickly.

Answer choice (B): Here, the author infers an absence of original intent to perform a particular action (I must not want to learn to ski), because the action naturally causes an undesirable effect (thinking about skiing causes terror). The causal relationship in the original premise is matched, but the conclusion is not. For this to be the correct answer choice, the author should have concluded, “I think about skiing in order to feel terror.”

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. Eating pizza naturally causes a stomachache, just like getting what we want causes pleasure. Both arguments then hold that the inadvertent results of our actions are actually intended on purpose. This answer choice contains the same flaw as the argument in the stimulus, even though “pleasure” is a desirable effect whereas stomachache is clearly undesirable. The difference is minor, and does not compromise the logical similarity between the two arguments.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice contains a Time Shift error: its author assumes that what was the case in the past will continue to occur in the future. The original argument commits no such error in reasoning. This answer choice fails to match our Test of Abstraction and is therefore incorrect.

Answer choice (E): Here, the author commits an error in conditional reasoning: A condition necessary for experiencing a particular feeling (a hot dog is necessary for enjoying a soccer game) is assumed to be necessary for experiencing a similar feeling (enjoying a basketball game). Clearly, this line of reasoning bears no similarity to the argument in the stimulus.

[ylikate]

I'm just lost on this one Is the flaw circular reasoning? I didn't choose C b/c the conclusion uses the word "Suppose" which suggests "Uncertainty" that was not in the stimulus. I'd really appreciate an explanation on the flaw and how C parallels? Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

I presume you mean LR2, Q 14, and not LR1? Coincidentally, LR1 Q14 was also a parallel flaw question, but answer C did not have that "suppose" element, so I supposed you made a typo.

Rather than circular reasoning here, this one actually strikes me as more of a causal flaw (although it also seems a bit conditional) - just because A causes B doesn't mean I do A only because I want B to happen. Remember that in a causal relationship one cause can have many effects, so claiming the existence of one effect does not rule out the possibility of others. (If you analyzed it as conditional, because of the key word "every", you end up with a similar analysis - just because A is sufficient for B doesn't rule out the possibility of A being sufficient for other things, too.)

The "suppose" in answer C is most likely there to deflect you from picking it, because it does sound uncertain and we know we want some degree of certainty. However, I wouldn't say that the stimulus is entirely certain - it says we CAN conclude (that is, we have enough evidence to conclude) something rather than we MUST conclude something (it is absolutely proven). Also, saying "I suppose" isn't as uncertain as it might seem - it's really just another way of saying "I conclude."

Don't like that analysis? Me neither, not much, but I think it's the best we can do here. This looks like another one of those "best" answers that might not appear to be a very good answer, unless you are very forgiving of the language as I just was.

If you did want an analysis of LR1, Q14, just let us know! I suppose we can help with that one, too.

[ylikate]

Thanks Adam. I suppose your explanation makes sense

[Nishbha]

I am a little confused about question 14 on the second logical reasoning section from the June 2013 LSAT.

Not sure how answer choice C demonstrates this flawed logic.

Can you diagram this for me/explain why C is the best choice?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Nishbha,

This one is a little bit tricky, but basically the stimulus argument is saying that since every time people get what they want they feel pleasure, then that means that people must only want pleasure. C follows this same logic in a more absurd way.

Both arguments essentially say this:
Every time people X they get Y. Therefore, people X to get Y.

Stimulus:
X = "get what they want"
Y = "pleasure"

Answer Choice C:
X = "eat pizza"
Y = "a stomachache"

Does that help?

Kelsey

[Applesaid]

hello!

I can somehow see the stimulus itself is flawed but I could hardly identify what error it is. So I wasn't even able to choose an answer choice. Can someone help me with this out? Thanks


Celine

[Jon Denning]

Hey Celine,

Thanks for the question. The flaw in this stimulus lies in an assumption the author makes about the connection between getting what we want, and feeling pleasure. We are told that when we get what we want we naturally feel pleasure, so:

Get What We Want Pleasure

In a sense we have a causal relationship, where getting what we want leads to pleasure as a result. The trouble is that the author concludes that pleasure is the reason that we want/desire things. That is, we only desire (want) things BECAUSE they give us pleasure.

But is that a valid argument? Of course not! Just because pleasure is a result of getting something we want (something we "fundamentally desire," as the conclusion puts it), doesn't mean it was the sole reason or purpose of our wanting it in the first place.

Consider another example with the same logic:

Running on a treadmill leads to fatigue. So people on a treadmill are there because they want to be tired.

That's pretty silly, but that's the equivalent of what the author is doing! So now we need to find an answer that takes the linkage between two things and then suggests the inadvertent effect is the REASON someone chose the cause.

Answer choice (C) mirrors that idea: eating pizza leads to a stomachache, so getting a stomachache must be the reason for eating pizza.

I hope that helps!

Jon

[Brandonhsi]

Hello,

I see the premise has both conditional and causal language. I expect the correct answer has both conditional and causal language as well, but it is not the case here. I was wondering what exactly this question is asking me to do? Thanks!

Thanks,
Brandon

[Andrew Ash]

Hi Brandon,

Sometimes, Parallel the Reasoning questions can be most difficult when they're very short, as in this case. When I'm dealing with a very short stimulus like this one, rather than trying to split the stimulus up into its component parts as I usually would, I skip right to the last step of the Elemental Attack, the Test of Abstraction (which we discuss on page 8-2 of the Full Length Course books, and page 104 of the Weekend Course book). In this case, my abstraction would be "Every time people do this it results in the same consequence, so they must be doing it in order to get the consequence." And that's what we have in answer choice (C), too: "Every time I do one thing, another thing happens, so I must do the first thing in order to get the second thing to happen."

For another example of how the Test of Abstraction can be helpful with short, tricky stimuli like this one, take a look at page 8-3 from the Full Length Course books, question 2 (this is also December 2001, LR1 Section I question 17, on "the best way to write a good detective story").

I hope this is helpful in dealing with this specific and tricky type of Parallel the Reasoning question!

Thanks,
Andrew