#15 - The Scorpio Miser with its special high-efficiency

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)

The more efficient Miser is more expensive, so to make up the price one needs to save on fuel. At current prices, one would need to drive 60,000 miles to achieve this savings.

The author believes that a drop in fuel prices would one to achieve these savings with less miles driven.

What the author doesn’t realize is this: the higher the fuel price, the greater the savings associated with increased efficiency. The correct answer choice will parallel this flawed logic.

Only answer choice (C) reflects the same flawed pattern of reasoning:

The more efficient Roadmaker is more expensive, so it eventually makes up for its price in staffing savings (equivalent to fuel savings from the stimulus).

The author of this passage mistakenly believes that this savings can be achieved faster if staffing prices drop.

What the author of this choice doesn’t realize is this: the higher the staffing prices, the greater the savings associated with increased efficiency.

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
For this question, I found (C) and (B) equally right. Can you explain this to me?
Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Hi Powerscore!
For this question, I found (C) and (B) equally right. Can you explain this to me?
Thanks!

Hello,

(b) actually makes some sense, in that if you don't have to pay for as much power use by the power-hungry Polar freezer, then you don't have to sell as much food. However, with (c), the financial advantage from reduced staffing levels is sort of contingent on paying the workers a lot. If you could buy a million hours of labor for just a penny, then there would not be much advantage in reduced staffing levels. So, saying "Therefore, the Roadmaker is especially advantageous where average wages are low." is silly, since the advantage would be if the average wages were high. And the stimulus makes a similar mistake, saying that it'd be easier to break even if fuel prices fell--but if they fell, you'd be saving less money per gallon of fuel.

David

[reop6780]

As far as I understand the error relies on the last sentence, "It follows that, if fuel prices fell, it would take fewer miles to reach the break-even point."
I thought "if fuel prices fell, it would take MORE miles to reach the break-even point."
Is the answer C correct because its statement should be "where average wages are HIGH" to be logically sound?

Also, answer B is a bit confusing for me. I guess it is also flawed in that "a HIGHER...justify choosing the Polar freezer"...?

My main concern is that I couldn't tell the difference between answer B and C.

I wish there were some distinctive difference in style in conclusion or something. (should, many, may...)

Is flawed parallel focused on the match of flaw rather than other factors such as conclusion and wording?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi reop6780!

You identified the flaw in the stimulus correctly and you are correct that answer choice (C) has the same flaw.

Answer choice (B) doesn't have the same flaw because, as you point out, the conclusion is about justifying choosing one thing over another whereas the conclusions in the stimulus and (C) are about what it would take to make up the extra money spent on the more expensive option--not necessarily that you should go with that option or would be justified in choosing it.

There isn't always a distinctive wording (most, many, should, never, probably, etc.) that you can latch onto. When it's a parallel flaw question, focus on the flaw and make sure your answer choice has that same flaw. And when you don't have specific words to look out for, think through the logic. The Test of Abstraction can be helpful for that.

Hope that helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[Johnclem]

Hi I had trouble with this one. I don't see how C matches the flaw in the stimulus. Please help!
So the flaw here is that it's the opposite of what the conclusion says. It would in fact take longer to make the price difference. I'm just not sure why C fits in. Is it because reduced staffing it would take longer to fix the roads ?

1- the Miser costs more to buy than the standard sports car.
2- at current fuel prices, the buyer would have to drive 60,000 miles to make up the difference.
C: it follows that if fuel prices fell , it would take fewer miles to reach the break point.


Answer choice C:

1- with the road are a crew can replace a road in less time than the competing model, which is cheaper .
2-reduced staffing levels would compensate for the price difference.
C: road maker is especially advantageous where average wages are low.


Thanks

[Robert Carroll]

John,

You correctly identified what the argument in the stimulus is saying. You also identified that the flaw is thinking that lower fuel prices would make the Miser a better buy when in fact they might make it a worse buy. You just need to match this to what answer choice (C) is saying.

Answer choice (C) says, as in the stimulus, that one model is more expensive than the other, but it is more efficient. Specifically, the Roadmaker is more efficient in that it takes less time to repave a decayed road. This allows the user to reduce staffing levels. Thus, the Roadmaker is more expensive to buy but reduces the cost associated with staffing. The conclusion is that it will be especially advantageous when average wages are low. But when average wages are low, the costs associated with staffing are low, so the savings of reducing staffing will not be as high - this situation is comparable to the Scorpio Miser in that low fuel prices reduce the advantage it has over the cheaper model. Thus, the argument commits the same flaw as that in the stimulus, which demonstrates that this is the correct answer choice.

Robert Carroll

[akanshalsat]

LRTT CH 11 # 7

Hello! So I narrowed down my answer choices to B and C, and ultimately chose B because I think I didnt understant the stimulus correctly. I may be completely ignorant, to this "common sense" type question but I don't understand how prices work with car mileage and its correlation with fuel, therefore I was unable to see the "flaw" in this, and I think that hindered me from differentiating between B and C, and pushing me to just choose an answer choice which seemed more understandable. Could someone please explain exactly what the stimulus is saying and how driving 60,000 miles would "make up the difference". I'm super sorry if this is an obtuse question.

[Adam Tyson]

Thanks for the question, akanshalsat! This argument is at least somewhat about numbers - the Miser costs more but uses less fuel. Let's put some numbers to that - let's say it is $60,000 more than the other, less efficient model. Let's also say it saves $1 every mile you drive (because it uses that much less gas - a dollar's worth at current fuel prices). That would mean that over 60,000 miles, you would save $60,000, and at that point the high-efficiency engine would have "paid for itself" - you would have saved all the extra money you spent on it.

What happens if fuel prices drop? Then, while you are saving the same amount of fuel, you are saving less money per mile, because that fuel now costs less. In that scenario, since you are saving less money per mile, you would have to drive more miles to equal the extra $60k that you spent on the engine. The flaw here is that the author got that backwards! The car won't reach that break-even point (where savings equals extra cost) at 60,000 miles, but later than that, because the per-mile savings are lower. It's if the price of fuel goes UP that you would get there sooner.

We need an answer that has the author getting some sort of calculation backwards. That's what happens in correct answer C - you don't get the advantage of a smaller crew when wages are LOW, you get the advantage when wages are HIGH, because higher wages means more savings when you need fewer people.

Answer B doesn't have that flaw, because it gets the math right. Lower electricity costs mean using a machine that uses more electricity than a competitor means you don't have to make as much money to cover the extra costs.

Try playing with the numbers and you'll see it. It's not common sense - it's math!

[kupwarriors9]

Is this question able to be diagrammed?

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)

The more efficient Miser is more expensive, so to make up the price one needs to save on fuel. At current prices, one would need to drive 60,000 miles to achieve this savings.

The author believes that a drop in fuel prices would one to achieve these savings with less miles driven.

What the author doesn’t realize is this: the higher the fuel price, the greater the savings associated with increased efficiency. The correct answer choice will parallel this flawed logic.

Only answer choice (C) reflects the same flawed pattern of reasoning:

The more efficient Roadmaker is more expensive, so it eventually makes up for its price in staffing savings (equivalent to fuel savings from the stimulus).

The author of this passage mistakenly believes that this savings can be achieved faster if staffing prices drop.

What the author of this choice doesn’t realize is this: the higher the staffing prices, the greater the savings associated with increased efficiency.