#4 - Generally, it is important that people practice what they preach

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A).

The author is making the argument that is it important that people practice what they preach but they note that there are exceptions to that statement. The author uses the example that it is no more necessary for logicians to be logical than it is for physicians to have healthy lifestyles.

We can notice that this is a bad argument. The example the author is providing is not appropriate. While logicians have to be logical and as such, they can't be illogical. Whereas physicians don't have to have a healthy lifestyle in order to be competent physicians.

This is a flaw question that asks to find the error the author has made. The prephrase is that the author has made an error when providing an example because physicians don't have to have a healthy lifestyle in order to be competent.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. because physicians don't have to follow a healthy lifestyle in order to be competent and the example fails to support the claim that it is important that people practice what they preach.

Answer choice (B): Since the stimulus does not have anything to do with physician health deteriorating, this answer choice introduces a new idea and therefore is wrong.

Answer choice (C): The stimulus does not concern itself with who can cause more harm.

Answer choice (D): The stimulus does not compare whether it is harder to be logical or be healthy. New information is not allowed in flaw questions.

Answer choice (E): Logicians are in the act of logic and as such, it is fair to assume an illogical logician is incompetent. This AC isn't a flaw and therefore can't be the right answer.

[dkmnrv]

Hello! Just did this practice test and found myself surprisingly troubled by this question. I was hoping to get some clarification on where I went wrong in my approach how I could have had an easier time eliminating some of the incorrect answer choices.

When I read the passage, I understood the conclusion to be that there are certain exceptions to the idea of practicing what one preaches, with the support being the idea that it is just as important for logicians to use logic in their discussions as it is for physicians to lead physically healthy lifestyles. At this point, it wasn't immediately obvious to me what kind of answer choice I was looking to find. Was I trying to find an answer that suggested that these two were not, in fact, equal? Was I looking for something that explained how neither of these two were actually exceptions to the rule? That just one of the two professions was an exception?

I did end up choosing A , but that was only because I felt like I could poke too many holes in the other choices. I also had to spend an embarrassingly long amount of time going through each choice, nitpicking to find problems in its wording/focus, instead of having a clear conception from the get-go of what I needed and choosing what was obviously correct.

I understand that I am almost certainly overthinking a very simple question, but if someone could explain either the mindset they had for this one or generally what kinds of flaws we see in arguments with this type of reasoning style, that would be very helpful.

[German.Steel]

I agree with the previous poster this was an unusual question, and I was troubled by the similarity between (A) and (E). Ultimately (A) struck me as the superior option because it directly notes the comparison between logicians and physicians. However, (E), while weaker as it is non-comparative, does seem plausible...I wasn't sure whether commonsense would dictate that being logical is "necessary" or just "highly desirable" for a logician.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

The approach here should be to think about how the reasoning fails. We know it's flawed from the questions stem. We want to think about how. Broadly categorized, this stimulus compares two things that are not really comparable in an important aspect.

So how are these two things different? How is it different for a logician to illogical when discussing logic than it is for a physician to be unhealthy when treating patients? It comes down to the critical essence of what each person does. A logician needs to do logic for their job. That's the critical component of being a logician. If you are an illogical logician, you aren't doing a very good job at being a logician. A physician needs to treat patients. If you are personally unhealthy or live an unhealthy lifestyle, that doesn't impact your ability to do the central work of treating patients. You can still read lab results with high blood pressure. You can diagnose an ear infection even if you have diabetes yourself. There's nothing about being healthy that is critical for practicing medicine in the same way there is something critical about being logical when practicing logic.

Answer choice (E) then, is just false. You do need to be logical to practice logic. It's not just desirable, it's a critical component of the work. Answer choice (A) describes what we were looking for---the difference between the logic case and the physician case.

Hope that helps you both.

[Neil J]

I can understand why A is right, but for some reason, found B extremely attractive and actually chose it. Could someone please explain why B is wrong?

[Adam Tyson]

I'd say B is wrong because even if it's true, it isn't really a problem with the argument, Neil J. Just because a very ill physician might be unable to treat a patient, that doesn't mean that all physicians must always lead healthy lifestyles in order to treat patients. The author's point is that a physician CAN lead an unhealthy lifestyle and still help their patients. A healthy lifestyle might be better, but it's not necessary that those doctors practice what they preach.

The real problem here is that the analogy between physicians and logicians is a bad one, because while a doctor who leads an unhealthy life could still get their job done, a logician who is not logical is, by definition, not doing the job correctly!

[justlikemagic]

is "For instance, it is not necessary for logicians to be... of logic; the same way that it is not necessary for physicians to have... treat people." the same meaning as the wording in the stimulus?

basically, is the wording: "it is not necessary"....."the same way that it is not necessary" an equivalent way to express the original phrase / wording in the stimulus: "no more necessary"...."than it is"

also, if there are any, can you state some other ways to word "no more necessary"..."than it is" that would express an equivalent meaning?

[Adam Tyson]

You got it, justlikemagic! "No more necessary (to do X than Y)" means that the first one is equally unimportant to the second one. They are both unnecessary.

That would be essentially the same as saying "it is not any more important" or "it is just as unnecessary." Anything that adds up to saying the first thing is as irrelevant as the second thing, or is equally unimportant.

[LeahStrong33]

I found this question challenging not due to the actual reasoning behind the argument being made but rather the structure of the argument itself. I knew the conclusion was there are exceptions to the general principle that it is important that people practice what they preach. The argument continues with "for instance" introducing the author's premises. Upon reading the author's premises I had the initial reaction "This analogy sucks" but I struggled because I thought we were suppose to always accept the premises as true and therefore should not debate whether or not "it is no more necessary for logicians to be logical in their discussions of logic than it is for physicians to have healthy lifestyles in order to treat people." I understand how A, properly weakens the analogy by illustrating a critical dissimilarity between the two subjects at hand however, I did not select it because I perceived it as attacking the "it is no more necessary" aspect granted in the premises. I ended up choosing E, which I was uncomfortable with as I felt it was requiring me to equate "highly desirable" with "important". In hindsight, I can see why A is the correct answer but my underlying question is how is this not attacking the premises? and by extension how is "an error when providing an example" not an attack on the author's premises? Maybe I'm overthinking this but any insight on this would be appreciated. Thanks in advance and thanks in general as the powerscore resources have been an enormous help throughout my studying process!

[Luke Haqq]

Hi LeahStrong33!

You're generally right to think that one needs to take the premises as they are. This means you won't encounter a correct answer choice that just states that facts in one of the given premises are false.

That being said, on a variety of questions (e.g., flaw in the reasoning, assumption, weaken, strengthen), you might find that there are weaknesses in the argument being presented. There is definitely a flaw in the argument if it's a flaw in the reasoning question stem. So taking the sentences in the stimulus as they are might involve identifying that a given premise is weak, or doesn't prove what the author thinks it does, or makes an inapt analogy.

In noticing that such flaws or weaknesses occur in the stimulus, one might describe this as "attacking the premises" in the sense of being on guard and ready to find flaws in them. Attacking the premises in this sense doesn't mean that one is rejecting them as factually inaccurate.