- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 651
- Joined: Oct 19, 2022
- Mon Nov 04, 2024 10:06 pm
#110391
Hi Davepix,
First, the original explanation states that "(if the stimulus contains flawed reasoning the question stem will indicate that there is a flaw)." While this used to be a trend on the test, it is not an absolute rule and should not be treated as such. There have certainly been examples of flawed arguments in parallel reasoning questions that were not identified as flawed in the question stem, especially in recent years. If the stem tells you that it is flawed, then it is. However, if the question stem doesn't mention whether it is flawed, then you will need to determine this on your own.
As to your question, this argument is not flawed, so the question stem would not indicate that it is flawed. The reason that the argument is valid has nothing to do with the question stem. It is valid because the premises do 100% prove the conclusion.
The tricky part with the diagramming for this argument is that the logical opposite of "never harm" is "sometimes harm," so you could diagram "wealth sometimes harms" as
W -> Not NH
(which means if wealth, then Not never harms)
(Not NH is a double negative, and sounds strange, but can be easier to use for the diagram)
Since good things never harm
GT -> NH
(the contrapositive is Not NH -> Not GT)
We can 100% prove that wealth is not a good thing by linking the first premise to the contrapositive of the second premise.
W -> Not NH -> Not GT
First, the original explanation states that "(if the stimulus contains flawed reasoning the question stem will indicate that there is a flaw)." While this used to be a trend on the test, it is not an absolute rule and should not be treated as such. There have certainly been examples of flawed arguments in parallel reasoning questions that were not identified as flawed in the question stem, especially in recent years. If the stem tells you that it is flawed, then it is. However, if the question stem doesn't mention whether it is flawed, then you will need to determine this on your own.
As to your question, this argument is not flawed, so the question stem would not indicate that it is flawed. The reason that the argument is valid has nothing to do with the question stem. It is valid because the premises do 100% prove the conclusion.
The tricky part with the diagramming for this argument is that the logical opposite of "never harm" is "sometimes harm," so you could diagram "wealth sometimes harms" as
W -> Not NH
(which means if wealth, then Not never harms)
(Not NH is a double negative, and sounds strange, but can be easier to use for the diagram)
Since good things never harm
GT -> NH
(the contrapositive is Not NH -> Not GT)
We can 100% prove that wealth is not a good thing by linking the first premise to the contrapositive of the second premise.
W -> Not NH -> Not GT