#24 - In every case of political unrest in a certain country

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)

The logical reasoning here is clearly flawed; this specific type of people have been found behind every case of political unrest, so it must always be the same people!

This invalid conclusion does not consider that there might be more than one group that organized and fomented the unrest. The correct answer will likely make a similar mistake.

Answer choice (A): Unlike that found in the stimulus, the flaw manifest in this answer choice is the presumption that the average of all of those numbers will be a whole number; if there is a decimal, then presumably it cannot be anyone's license number.

Answer choice (B): This incorrect answer choice may be an attractive distracter for many test-takers, but unlike the stimulus author who presumes there can be only one group with particular characteristics, this answer choice reflects the flawed presumption that there must be as many area codes as phone numbers! Clearly flawed, but not analogous to the flawed argumentation of the stimulus, so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, with reasoning as follows:

This type of number is assigned to everyone in Edmonton, so it must always be the same number. This invalid reasoning is exactly like that of the stimulus—reflecting the presumption that there cannot be more than one number for all of the people in Edmonton, just like the stimulus author assumes that there cannot be more than one organized, fomenting group.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice bases a flawed conclusion on irrelevant evidence, but does not make the mistake made by the author of the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): Like that found in incorrect answer choice (D) above, the flaw found in this answer choice is unlike that found in the stimulus, because here there is no presumption that something is always the same. This answer choice is incorrect.

[cboles]

I chose answer choice E for this question because I read the stimulus as follows:

if something happens in every case, then it is true for all cases

I read E exactly the same way: because every moment is followed by another moment, Vladmir's life will never end.

Can someone explain why E is wrong and C is the better choice? Thanks!

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi cboles,

Thanks for the question.

The argument does not commit a Time Shift error, as the conclusion does not make an absolute prediction about what will occur on the basis of a pattern of events that have occurred in the past. Rather, this is a more subtle Error of Composition: just because each instance of political unrest had a single mastermind behind it doesn't mean that all instances of political unrest had a single mastermind behind them. Maybe each instance of political unrest has a different mastermind behind it? This is like saying: everyone who goes to law school has a single objective in mind. Therefore, all law students have the same single objective.

As you can see, answer choice (C) parallels this line of reasoning. Answer choice (E), by contrast, is logically valid (it's absurd, but that doesn't make it invalid). If every moment in Vladimir's life is followed by another moment, then Vladimir would be indeed eternal. I can think of at least one Vladimir who would be thrilled with the logical implications of this answer choice

Hope this helps!

[avengingangel]

how would you make the distinction from not characterizing this as a part to whole flaw? or even like a, "past to future" flaw (just because it's happened previously, it is therefore certain it will happen again). that's what i picked up on when i read this stimulus: in every case (thus far) the police have discovered a single person was behind it...therefore in ALL cases (past, present, future, discovered, not discovered, whatever) a single person is ALWAYS Behind them !!! <<that's how i was reading the flaw.

[AthenaDalton]

Hi avengingangel,

I read the flaw in the prompt a little differently. The stimulus tells us that every time the police investigate political unrest, they have discovered that "some unknown person or persons organized and fomented" political unrest.

To translate this into plain English, political unrest arises in a country. The police investigate. The first time they discover that Person A, a citizen with no criminal record, has organized the political unrest. The second time they investigate political unrest they discover that Group XYZ is behind it. The third time, Persons B and C are behind it. And so on. What this is getting at is that each time the police find the source of political unrest, it's someone new. They're not arresting the same person over and over, it's always some new person or some new political group.

The stimulus then goes on to conclude -- very unreasonably -- that there is actually one single mastermind who was in control of Person A, Group XYZ, and Persons B and C the whole time! Maybe the "one single mastermind" is the head of the opposition party in the upcoming election. You get the idea. It's really unreasonable to assume that a series of disparate, seemingly unconnected individuals or groups of individuals are actually all being controlled by a single person.

Answer choice (C) makes a similar type of flaw -- every individual in the city has a social insurance number, therefore everyone has the same number.

If answer choice (C) didn't jump out at you, you could also tackle this one by process of elimination. Sometimes it's hard to spot the right type of flawed reasoning!

Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

[jessicamorehead]

Hi there,

Once again I arrived at the right answer in a very different way. I was wondering if someone can confirm my logic or tell me if there's something I need to change in my analysis?

The stimulus basically says, "In EVERY case of political unrest in a certain country, the police have discovered that some unknown person or persons organized it." Then concludes that, "behind ALL the cases of political unrest in that country there has been a single mastermind who organized it." The EVERY and ALL certainly caught my attention. I reasoned that just because EVERY case studied by the police was proven to have a person or persons behind it, does not necessarily mean that ALL cases have that same characteristic. What about the ones the police don't know about? Or am I wrong and should I assume that all the cases are known/studied by the police? Now that I'm typing this out.... I'm starting to think I may be wrong.

Basically, I narrowed down the answer choices for these reasons:

A: Out, the conclusion talks about averages which is a very important idea not mentioned in the stimulus.
B: Out, the conclusion uses "at least," which is not used in the stimulus' conclusion.
C: I liked this one. It also moved from "every" in the premise to "all" in the conclusion.
D: Out, mentioned new idea in the conclusion "at twenty."
E: Out, I see this one as valid, even though some argue it is invalid. Also does not have the "every" to "all" element that I was focusing on.

[Daniel Stern]

Jessica:

You eliminate A because the conclusion was about averages, and you said that this concept had not been mentioned in the stimulus. Although A is indeed incorrect, be sure not to eliminate answers on a Parallel Flaw question just because the answer includes something new or different in terms of content than what was in the stimulus. Answer A here is incorrect because it does not track the flaw of the stimulus, namely, assuming that the same thing is true of every case examined.

I'd say your logic for eliminating the other answer choices is o.k.

I hope that is helpful. Good luck!
-- Dan

[elite097]

So can we reject A on grounds that not all cars had the same number as average ? Would it then equate to having a single mastermind for all unrest cases?

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Right elite. Answer choice (A) isn't saying that all the licenses have the same number. The argument in the stimulus is that because in each case there is one person/group behind the unrest, it's the same person(s) behind the political unrest. Answer choice (A) doesn't even talk about ALL the licenses. It's only some licenses that allegedly have the average number. If answer choice (A) said that all the licenses were the same number, it would match.

Good work!