#10 - The formation of hurricanes that threaten the United

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw-SN. The correct answer choice is (C)

The stimulus asserts that since abundant rainfall in sub-Saharan Africa precedes periods in which hurricanes hit the US with greater frequency, the sub-Saharan rainfall helps cause the winds that lead to hurricanes.

The stimulus contains causal reasoning, and thus the normal potential causal flaws.

First, the argument assumes that the sub-Saharan rainfall is a cause, but it is possible that, for instance, the sub-Saharan rainfall is simply caused by another thing that also causes hurricanes.

Furthermore, the argument assumes that when the US is hit by more hurricanes, that is because there are more hurricanes in general. However, there are other possibilities. For example, it might be that there are general weather patterns that make it more likely for hurricanes to hit the US, without an increase in the number of total hurricanes.

Answer choice (A): This response requires the linking assumption that exercise or sleep leads to health. However, the stimulus never introduced such a totally new element in its conclusion.

Answer choice (B): This choice makes the totally unwarranted assumption that more intersections will not mean more places for pedestrians to be hit. In a way, it also assumes that speed is the only cause of danger to pedestrians. However, this choice makes a specific alternative cause obvious, and the stimulus does not, so this response is weak. That and the fact that the stimulus considered tendency and partial causality rather than certainty make this choice wrong.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice: This response assumes that a correlation indicates a causality, precisely the general mistake that the stimulus made.

Answer choice (D): This response contains improper reasoning, but is not similar to the stimulus. This choice contains contrasting, polar opposite situations, but the stimulus did not.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice mistakenly moves from possibility to certainty, but the stimulus did not do any such thing. The stimulus merely implied a poorly supported causal assumption.

[Blueballoon5%]

The answer key states that, for answer choice C, “this choice makes a specific alternative cause obvious,” but what is this obvious specific alternative?

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Blue,

Again, unfortunately, my edition of this book does not include the explanations to which you refer. However, the alternate cause for both events that I would posit is a competitive personality lead such a person both to be an entrepreneur and competitive athlete. This is again I suspect just an attempt to flesh out some of the thoughts that might occur to you as you consider the answer choices. Let me know if I may provide further explanation of this particular problem.

[biskam]

WHat's the role that the first sentence plays in the stimulus. I thought the CE rested there but now I know its not the wind, but the rain they think causes the hurricanes in the US. Is it extra info just meant to mess you up? It seems now like less than even a premise because it doesn't support the conclusion at all

And you say E moves from possibility to certainty.
Where's the possibility--in the the phrase "most somehow promote"?
And the certainty--in the phrase "liberalization in EE WILL lead"?

thank you!

[nicholaspavic]

Hi biskam,

The first sentence in the stimulus addresses "high atmospheric winds" but not abundant rains. The conclusion states those rains promote "high atmospheric winds" after connecting African rains to US hurricanes. In other words, it is making a correlation in the second sentence.

The analysis and comparison that you make between Answer Option (E) and the stimulus is correct. The correlation converting into the poorly supported causal assumption in the stimulus is not followed in Answer Option (E) with its strong wording of "will lead to" and thus, Answer (C) is the correct choice.

Thanks for the great question!

[Etsevdos]

Does "many" in C caus want issue of concern? Stimulus does not have word many. Thanks

[nicholaspavic]

Hi etsevdos,

I think you are asking about the lack of the word "many" in the stimulus and whether or not (C) should be disqualified because it uses that word. Here, in this parallel flaw question, the word many would not disqualify (C) because the argument is not one that relies on absolute quantities (like 100%). They are just noting that student athletes often ended up as entrepreneurs and therefore the athletic background caused them to become entrepreneurs which is enough to try to establish (unsuccessfully) cause and effect.

Thanks for the great question and I hope this helps!

[jessicamorehead]

Can someone verify my logic on this one? I definitely noticed that the stimulus tries to link rains and winds together in a causal relationship, when they may not be connected at all. However, I narrowed down my choices based on the wording of the stimulus before spending time comparing the flaws.

I eliminated A because it introduced a new term, "healthy," and the conclusion used "tend to be," while the stimulus' conclusion was pretty concrete with the "must."

I eliminated B because the conclusion was based on a relative relationship, while the stimulus' conclusion was not. "long blocks are thus MORE dangerous..."

I kept C because I liked it.

I eliminated D because it didn't directly reference causation.

I eliminated E because its premise used the term "can affect," while the stimulus' premise was more absolute with "is triggered." Also, its conclusion moved to absolute terms "will lead."

I then went back and saw that C does have the same "correlation does not equal causation" flaw. Overall, I'm concerned I didn't focus as much on the flaw as I should have. Is that an issue? Or since these flaw questions are a subset of parallel the reasoning question types, am I okay in my thinking?

[Daniel Stern]

Jessica:

First off, I'd say any process that gets you to the right answer is a good process! But since you want to be certain that you can repeat the procedure on test day, and not just get this question right, it is good that you are questioning your own logic.

On a parallel flaw question, I would definitely spend time unpacking the stimulus and making sure you understand what the flaw is before you move into your answer choices. Although you can't necessarily Pre-Phrase exactly what the answer will be, you should understand what flaw was contained in the stimulus argument and how they relate to one another.

You wrote:
"I eliminated A because it introduced a new term, "healthy," and the conclusion used "tend to be," while the stimulus' conclusion was pretty concrete with the "must."" -- Your identification of the new term leap in this answer choice is correct; there was no such new term introduction in the stimulus. I think your reasoning for eliminating this answer is fine.

"I eliminated B because the conclusion was based on a relative relationship, while the stimulus' conclusion was not. "long blocks are thus MORE dangerous..." -- Again, your logic is fine, you are correct to say that this answer choice's conclusion does not mirror the conclusion of the stimulus.

"I kept C because I liked it." -- Good!

"I eliminated D because it didn't directly reference causation." -- In some sense, D is implying causation, that the light or dark is what causes the plant to open, but it is talking about inferring that the opposite of something necessarily leads to an opposite result, and the stimulus didn't set up any similar relationship.

"I eliminated E because its premise used the term "can affect," while the stimulus' premise was more absolute with "is triggered." Also, its conclusion moved to absolute terms "will lead."" -- I think your logic here is perfectly sound.

So ultimately you used some of the techniques from Parallel Reasoning -- such as Double the Conlusion or Double the Premises -- to do a comparison among the answer choices. That's fine to do on a Parallel Flaw question, but do analyze the stimulus and identify the flaw first, before going to the answer choices. This will prevent you from getting confused by closely worded answer choices and prevent you from making mistakes as you apply your Element Attack.

Good luck in your studies,
Dan

[elewis10]

Hello- could someone please explain to me the difference between the last sentence of C and E?

i.e. what is the difference between MUST and WILL? I see above that E goes too far in saying "liberalization in Eastern Europe will lead to liberalization in Central America"... but doesn't C do the same thing in saying "... sports MUST enhance a person's entrepreneurial ability" ? What am I missing here?