- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 6030
- Joined: Mar 25, 2011
- Wed Mar 03, 2021 6:10 pm
#84835
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Flaw—Sufficient and Necessary Conditions. The correct answer choice is (C)
This problem contains conditional reasoning (“people who” is a
sufficient condition indicator), but the reasoning structure is not as clean
as in other problems. In this argument the first and second sentences
contain premises and the third sentence is the conclusion. We can diagram
the argument as follows:
D = good at playing the game Drackedary
SH = skilled with their hands
M = Mary The argument makes the assumption that being a competent watchmaker
is equivalent to being skilled with your hands, and then makes a Mistaken
Reversal using that assumption. The question stem helpfully notes that
flawed reasoning is present, as well.
Although this is an understandable form of reasoning, you may have
difficulty quickly applying that form to five answer choices. Given that
finding a duplicate of the reasoning may be time-consuming, how can
you speed up the process? Consider the conclusion for a moment—the
controlling element is that Mary “would make” a good player. That is a
fairly specific statement, and one that must be reasonably matched in the
correct answer choice. Thus, let’s see if we can eliminate a few answer
choices by attempting to match the conclusion. The process is made
especially easy because the conclusion appears in the last sentence of each
answer choice, conveniently prefaced by the word “therefore.”
Answer choices (A) and (C) have conclusion components—“would
make”—that are identical to the stimulus, so they both remain as
Contenders.
Answer choice (B) contains a conclusion with no wording similar
to “would make,” so we eliminate this answer for now. We can
always reconsider the answer if none of the others pan out.
Answer choice (D) contains an element—“must”—that is
significantly different from “would make,” so we also eliminate
this answer.
Answer choice (E) can be eliminated since the operating element
in the conclusion—“could—is not the same as “would make.”
Thus, by comparing conclusions, three answers have been eliminated in
nearly effortless fashion. Now focus on answer choices (A) and (C) and
use the form of reasoning we identified in the stimulus to determine which
answer is correct.
Answer choice (A): This answer contains valid reasoning, and since
we are looking for an answer with flawed reasoning, the difference is
sufficient to eliminate this answer.
Note that the term “family” in this answer is interpreted to include Daryl.
If everyone in Daryl’s family has long legs, then Daryl must also since he
is in the family.
Answer choice (C): Because the other four answer choices have been
eliminated, we can deduce that this is the correct answer. A glance at the
structure of the argument confirms this:
RCD = race car drivers
GR = have good reflexes
C = Chris This argument equates two different terms (champion table tennis player =
great reflexes) and then makes a Mistaken Reversal, and this is parallel to
the argument in the stimulus.
The lesson to be learned from this problem is that different methods can
be used to eliminate different answers, and the process should be fluid and
based on the signals you derive from the stimulus. This question required
a combination of checking the reasoning, the conclusion, and the validity
of the argument. Other problems will require different combinations.
Remember that you have four basic tests at your disposal, and be prepared
to use them when you encounter a Parallel Reasoning problem.
Also, in case you were wondering, Drackedary is an imaginary game
dreamed up by the jokers at LSAC.
Parallel Flaw—Sufficient and Necessary Conditions. The correct answer choice is (C)
This problem contains conditional reasoning (“people who” is a
sufficient condition indicator), but the reasoning structure is not as clean
as in other problems. In this argument the first and second sentences
contain premises and the third sentence is the conclusion. We can diagram
the argument as follows:
D = good at playing the game Drackedary
SH = skilled with their hands
M = Mary The argument makes the assumption that being a competent watchmaker
is equivalent to being skilled with your hands, and then makes a Mistaken
Reversal using that assumption. The question stem helpfully notes that
flawed reasoning is present, as well.
Although this is an understandable form of reasoning, you may have
difficulty quickly applying that form to five answer choices. Given that
finding a duplicate of the reasoning may be time-consuming, how can
you speed up the process? Consider the conclusion for a moment—the
controlling element is that Mary “would make” a good player. That is a
fairly specific statement, and one that must be reasonably matched in the
correct answer choice. Thus, let’s see if we can eliminate a few answer
choices by attempting to match the conclusion. The process is made
especially easy because the conclusion appears in the last sentence of each
answer choice, conveniently prefaced by the word “therefore.”
Answer choices (A) and (C) have conclusion components—“would
make”—that are identical to the stimulus, so they both remain as
Contenders.
Answer choice (B) contains a conclusion with no wording similar
to “would make,” so we eliminate this answer for now. We can
always reconsider the answer if none of the others pan out.
Answer choice (D) contains an element—“must”—that is
significantly different from “would make,” so we also eliminate
this answer.
Answer choice (E) can be eliminated since the operating element
in the conclusion—“could—is not the same as “would make.”
Thus, by comparing conclusions, three answers have been eliminated in
nearly effortless fashion. Now focus on answer choices (A) and (C) and
use the form of reasoning we identified in the stimulus to determine which
answer is correct.
Answer choice (A): This answer contains valid reasoning, and since
we are looking for an answer with flawed reasoning, the difference is
sufficient to eliminate this answer.
Note that the term “family” in this answer is interpreted to include Daryl.
If everyone in Daryl’s family has long legs, then Daryl must also since he
is in the family.
Answer choice (C): Because the other four answer choices have been
eliminated, we can deduce that this is the correct answer. A glance at the
structure of the argument confirms this:
RCD = race car drivers
GR = have good reflexes
C = Chris This argument equates two different terms (champion table tennis player =
great reflexes) and then makes a Mistaken Reversal, and this is parallel to
the argument in the stimulus.
The lesson to be learned from this problem is that different methods can
be used to eliminate different answers, and the process should be fluid and
based on the signals you derive from the stimulus. This question required
a combination of checking the reasoning, the conclusion, and the validity
of the argument. Other problems will require different combinations.
Remember that you have four basic tests at your disposal, and be prepared
to use them when you encounter a Parallel Reasoning problem.
Also, in case you were wondering, Drackedary is an imaginary game
dreamed up by the jokers at LSAC.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Dave Killoran
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on X/Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore Podcast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
PowerScore Test Preparation
Follow me on X/Twitter at http://twitter.com/DaveKilloran
My LSAT Articles: http://blog.powerscore.com/lsat/author/dave-killoran
PowerScore Podcast: http://www.powerscore.com/lsat/podcast/
