- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Aug 20, 2014 11:00 pm
#35206
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning—Flaw. The correct answer choice is (D)
Here, the author reaches a flawed conclusion about who committed a burglary. The police suspect
that either Schaeffer or Forster committed the burglary. Since Schaeffer has an ironclad alibi, the
author concludes that Forster must be the burglar.
This is an example of a False Dilemma. Just because the police have identified two suspects does
not necessarily mean that either suspect is in fact the burglar. The burglar may be some other person
entirely. This is a Parallel Reasoning—Flaw question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer
choice will contain an argument in which the author uses a False Dilemma to reach the conclusion.
Answer choice (A): Unlike in the stimulus, this argument does not establish that the two options
were either building a new primate house or refurbishing its polar bear exhibit. While the conclusion
is flawed because no evidence has been offered to explain why they will not refurbish the polar bear
exhibit, this is not a False Dilemma because the argument has not established an either/or situation.
Answer choice (B): Here, the argument is valid, resulting from the application of a conditional rule
to a fact.
Answer choice (C): In this case, the author weighs two options and decides which course of action
the company should take, which is entirely dissimilar to the argument’s use of a False Dilemma.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it displays a False Dilemma. Just
like in the stimulus, although the argument does not explicitly create an either or relationship, the
fact remains that the company can have just one headquarters. However, the evidence does not
establish that Evansville and Rivertown are the only possibilities. So, evidence that the company will
not move its headquarters to Evansville does not definitively prove that it will move to Rivertown.
Answer choice (E): Here, the answer choice begins promisingly, telling us that the only viable
candidates are Slater and Gonzalez. However, the conclusion does not result from a False Dilemma
because the conclusion is probabilistic rather than definitive. In order to be a False Dilemma, the
conclusion must be definitive.
Parallel Reasoning—Flaw. The correct answer choice is (D)
Here, the author reaches a flawed conclusion about who committed a burglary. The police suspect
that either Schaeffer or Forster committed the burglary. Since Schaeffer has an ironclad alibi, the
author concludes that Forster must be the burglar.
This is an example of a False Dilemma. Just because the police have identified two suspects does
not necessarily mean that either suspect is in fact the burglar. The burglar may be some other person
entirely. This is a Parallel Reasoning—Flaw question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer
choice will contain an argument in which the author uses a False Dilemma to reach the conclusion.
Answer choice (A): Unlike in the stimulus, this argument does not establish that the two options
were either building a new primate house or refurbishing its polar bear exhibit. While the conclusion
is flawed because no evidence has been offered to explain why they will not refurbish the polar bear
exhibit, this is not a False Dilemma because the argument has not established an either/or situation.
Answer choice (B): Here, the argument is valid, resulting from the application of a conditional rule
to a fact.
Answer choice (C): In this case, the author weighs two options and decides which course of action
the company should take, which is entirely dissimilar to the argument’s use of a False Dilemma.
Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, because it displays a False Dilemma. Just
like in the stimulus, although the argument does not explicitly create an either or relationship, the
fact remains that the company can have just one headquarters. However, the evidence does not
establish that Evansville and Rivertown are the only possibilities. So, evidence that the company will
not move its headquarters to Evansville does not definitively prove that it will move to Rivertown.
Answer choice (E): Here, the answer choice begins promisingly, telling us that the only viable
candidates are Slater and Gonzalez. However, the conclusion does not result from a False Dilemma
because the conclusion is probabilistic rather than definitive. In order to be a False Dilemma, the
conclusion must be definitive.