p. 493, Answer Choice (D), Parallel Flaw, 2015 Version

[Faith123]

Hello,
I am having trouble understanding answer choice (D) for the Parallel Flaw problem on page 493 from the 2015 LR Bible. I understand that the "form" of the stimulus in this problem is a "Mistaken Negation," and that I am looking for an answer choice that is also a "Mistaken Negation."

What troubles me about answer choice (D) is that it does not have any sufficient/necessary condition indicators that makes the statement "conditional." The indicators that were present in answer choice (D) were "Fortunately" (an additional premise indicator) and "Therefore" (a conclusion indicator). The language of answer choice (D) was also probabilistic, from the phrase "would have," which I felt was not the case in the stimulus. Because of this, I ended up eliminating (D) [and also answer choice (B)], because I felt that these choices did not fit the "form" of the stimulus.

How is it that answer choices (B) and (D) can be treated like conditional statements? Are Parallel Reasoning/Parallel Flaw questions exceptions? Am I missing something?

Thank you

Faith123

[Steve Stein]

Hi Faith,

That's an interesting question. It's great to recognize the conditional reasoning indicator words, but the test-makers sometimes seem to go out of their way to avoid using them. In this case, take another look at answer choice (D), and consider how else we might be able to phrase the exact same sentiment:

In the event that my flight had been late...

If my flight had been late...

As it's written, it looks almost like they're trying to avoid using the word if!

As for the "would," let's see if we can rephrase the first sentence to use similar phrasing:
If the law were to punish littering, the city would have an obligation to supply trash cans.

An important lesson here is that we can't get too formulaic when it comes to recognizing and working with conditional reasoning. If we can diagram it, we can see the parallel:

Stimulus:
Punish obligation
Punish obligation

Answer choice (D):
Late flight miss meeting
Late flight miss meeting

These are both examples of Mistaken Negation, because in each instance the conditions have been negated, but not reversed.

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

~Steve

[Faith123]

Hello Steve!
Thank you very much for the explanation! It helped me understand the problem better!

But, how is it that you can replace "has" with "would"? Are we just trying to see if the sentence in the stimulus still makes sense even if "has" is replaced with "would" for the purpose of attempting to answer the question? Or is there another reason that allow us to replace words (like, is "has" a synonym of "would" in the LSAT world?).

Thank you!

Faith

[Steve Stein]

Hi Faith,

Thanks for your response—that's a good question. Keep in mind that the test-makers are clever, so we have to be careful not to get too formulaic with the wording. They have many opportunities to relay the same ideas in different ways. In this case, it's not that "has" and "would" are synonymous per se. Instead, take a look at the whole sentence, which could be relayed in several ways. The author of the stimulus is using different words to say that if the law were to punish littering the city would have the obligation to provide cans. Consider the following sentences, which all relay the same basic idea:

• If I get an invitation, I will have an obligation to attend the event.
  
  If I were to get an invitation, I would have an obligation to attend the event.
  
  An invitation would oblige me to attend.

In each case, the diagram would relay the same thing, that an invitation would bring an obligation to attend:

• Invitation Obligation to attend

As you develop a familiarity with conditional reasoning, this sort of "translating" from one phrasing to another will become increasingly second-nature. Take a look back at the drill on page 161-162; if you haven't already completed that you might find it valuable.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know—thanks!

~Steve

[Faith123]

Hi Steve,
Thank you so much for your response! It completely makes sense to me now!

Thank you! Thank you!

Faith