#17 - Biographer: Arnold's belief that every offer of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)

Another Parallel question, this stimulus appears as slightly humorous and silly. Don't overly complicate questions like these by getting lost in all the detail. Just boil the argument down to its parts. 1) Arnold believes something. 2) There is an understandable cause or explanation for this irrational belief. Conclusion: The belief is justified. Using this abstraction will make the question much easier.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice actually move in the opposite direction of the stimulus. Here, a general fact is given about the world (something not present in the stimulus) and this fact is used to explain why a belief is justified. In the stimulus, the fact that there is an explanation, a cause of the belief, justifies the belief.

Answer choice (B): The initial part of this answer seems to match, but then a fact about the world, "evidence" is offered to justify her belief. The cause of the belief is not used to justify it.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice, as this choice matches perfectly because Joan's belief is justified by an understandable explanation, not by any facts. The order of presentation is reversed, but the reasoning is the same. 1) There is an understandable cause or explanation for an irrational belief. 2) Joan has a belief about cats. Conclusion: This belief is justified.

Answer choice (D): The first word should tell you that this is an incorrect answer. This answer, like A and B, does not pass the Premise Test. There are no general facts about the world from "studies," "evidence" or general knowledge in the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice deviates entirely from the reasoning of the stimulus but does offer a similarly worded conclusion. However, Sumayia's opinion is justified by her training, not by any explanation related to Anthony's drive.

[eober]

I was wondering if we can expect the correct answer choice to mention "childhood" or is this not necessary for the answer choice to parallel the argument? Even if it is not necessary, is it usually the case that we see such commonality?

[Lucas Moreau]

Hello, eober,

You've hit on an important distinction in Parallel questions! It is important that you parallel the reasoning - that is, the logical structure - of the argument, and not the facts of the argument. There is no need for a specific mention of childhood in the correct answer choice.

You will, however, usually see some commonality, yes. The correct answer choice C happens to mention childhood, but that would not be necessary for a proper answer choice. Another proper parallel might have been:

"In the beginning of his career, Ralph was nearly injured by a rare malfunction in his Jeep. Therefore, since this makes his fear of Jeeps at this point in his career completely understandable, that belief is justified."

The flaw in this case is assuming that, if an act or thing seems positive but turns out negative in the past, it is justified to continue to assume that this is true in the future. There is no specific present reason that Arnold should distrust his colleagues or that Joan should disapprove of cats.

Hope that helps,
Lucas Moreau

[kristinaroz93]

For number 8, I can't seem to understand why A is wrong. Here is the abstraction: Arnold believes something, there is an understandable cause or explanation for this irrational belief, which leads to the conlcusion that the belief is justified.
A) Covers a belief: Executives have larger vocabularies
There is an understandable cause: since it was something instilled during childhood.
Conclusion: The idea that developing a large vocabulary is the best way to get on top in business is compeletely justified.

The explantion says this answer is wrong because a general fact is given about the world as one of the premises, but I also thought subject matter was irrelevant so long as the ideas were logically paralleled. And to me A looks correct as does C. What other approach can I take towards this problem therefore? Or what is it I am missing?

Thanks in advance!

[Steve Stein]

Hey Kristen,

That's an interesting question, which specifies that there is a flaw in the biographer's reasoning. What is that flaw?

Looking at the stimulus, we learn that Arnold thinks his co-workers are trying to make him look inadequate and that none of them are sincerely happy about his promotion.

Though no evidence is provided to support Arnold's beliefs about his co-workers, the biographer explains that his perspective is based on Arnold's overly-critical sister, and concludes that Arnold's perspective is completely justified. But while this poor treatment might explain why Arnold thinks this way, the treatment from his sister in the past doesn't justify his paranoia about his workers in the present.

Similarly, answer choice (C) provides no actual evidence that cats are bad pets, but simply an explanation for Joan's aversion to cats, which doesn't justify her sweeping belief that cats are not good pets.

Answer choice (A) is a clever wrong answer choice. The conclusion is similarly absolute, that the given belief is completely justified. The difference is that, unlike with the stimulus, in this case the author does provide some evidence that directly supports Sheldon's belief (the fact about top execs do indeed generally have bigger vocabularies does support the assertion that vocabulary is this key to the top). Note that this only strengthens, it does not justify, but that is different from the flaw reflected in the stimulus, where the explanation provided no actual support for the belief itself.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[jackievasquezx3]

Hello,

My concern regarding this question is that "understandable" was never used in the stimulus, and thus, I find the prephrase and correct answer choice, C, a stretch in terms of the paralleled reasoning. Can you please explain how "understandable" can be confidently prephrased when attacking this question under timed conditions? Thank you.

Best,
Jacklyn

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Jackie,

Thanks for continuing the discussion of this problem. You are correct to note that the idea that Arnold's belief is "understandable" is not present explicitly in the stimulus. However, this idea that Arnold's belief is "understandable" is both supported and tacit in the stimulus.

First, the stimulus contends that Arnold's behavior "may seem irrational" but "in fact" it is the result of his experience with his sister. Later, the account of this childhood trauma is the "explanation" in light of which the author concludes his "belief is justified."

Granted, this could be a difficult idea to parse out of the stimulus, but fortunately you don't have to!

As this is a Parallel the Flaw question, the most important aspect of it that you need to match is the flaw itself, not the particular elements of the stimulus or answer choice. For these questions, your prephrase should focus on identifying and describing abstractly the flaw present in the stimulus.

In this problem, you could give a quick and dirty explanation that the author reasons that "someone's negative reaction to circumstances is at present justified if this person was previously subjected to analogous circumstances that would explain such a negative reaction." In an even more skeletal manner, one could prephrase, "if a negative reaction is explainable according to past conditions, this negative reaction is justified in response to present conditions."

Notice that we're not getting too hung up on the particular term "understandable." Answer (C) is both an excellent and the only match for this prephrase.

Further, you should note the distinction between Parallel the Reasoning and Parallel the Flaw questions in that the PtR problems rely on more of a mechanistic parallel between elements of the stimulus and elements in the credited response (without neglecting logical structure of course) while PtF questions focus more narrowly on the flaw itself.

I hope this helps.

[biskam]

Answer choice (E): This answer choice deviates entirely from the reasoning of the stimulus but does offer a similarly worded conclusion. However, Sumayia's opinion is justified by her training, not by any explanation related to Anthony's drive.

I've gotten this question twice wrong now because I've chosen E both times. I'm always between C and E. And I still can't understand why E is wrong, even after reading the aforementioned explanation. I feel like it still meets all abstraction from the stimulus.

Is the issue that her conclusion is about Anthony and if it were correct then maybe she would bring up an an understandable cause about Anthony for her belief about him, but instead her cause/explanation is about herself/her family, which has nothing to do with Anthony, so therefore the conclusion isn't supported?

Meanwhile C has a justified belief about Joan that is supported by Joan's own experiences?

Thank you!

[Claire Horan]

Hi Biskam,

I'm having a hard time following your reasoning. Would you be able to state the flaw you see in the reasoning of the stimulus, and the flaw you see in the reasoning for both (C) and (E)? We could then discuss the differences.

[yournoona]

I am having the same trouble as well in deciding between C and E options. Sumaiyia's father and mother were the ones who received some form of training for piano and sumaiyia is merely the one who is being influenced from her parents. She is trying to derive her friend Anthony's lack of drive from what she has experienced being around professionals in her childhood. Hence, it is similar to the reasoning in the question which gives that Arnold is using his past negative experiences to justify his present day behaviour (with his colleague in this case.)

I understand why c is correct but i still don't understand why e as an option is wrong because it follows the same flow of thought regarding perceiving present day situations in light of past traumas/experiences.