#25 - A corporation created a new division. To staff it,

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (D)

The flawed pattern of reasoning displayed here is that of presuming that characteristics will automatically carry over from individuals to groups. We don't know much about the referenced division, but it might not be the most efficient, effective, or creative—for example, perhaps those chosen don't work well together?

The correct answer choice will likely be guilty of the same flaw—the invalid presumption that individual qualities always carry over to the group.

Answer choice (A): The reasoning here is indeed flawed, but not like the flaw found in the stimulus. In the stimulus, the flawed presumption is that individual characteristics manifests themselves in groups as well. Here, on the other hand, the flawed presumption is that the six finalists are the six best—what if one of the original six teams has all of the best players?

Answer choice (B): Like incorrect answer choice (A) above, this response is flawed but fails to parallel the reasoning in the stimulus. Here the flawed presumption is that one noted occurrence (a salesperson exceeding the sales goal) proves that the sales incentive program is working. It is only one salesperson, after all, and what if she didn't even know about the program? Maybe she always performs well? Clearly there are other possible causes for her strong performance.

Answer choice (C): This answer choice does not display the clearly flawed logic found in the stimulus. The referenced law firm appears to have a reasonable approach to the development of a new department. The conclusion is a bit too strong to be justified (one of the best?), but this flaw is easily distinguishable from that made by the author of the stimulus.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice, as it nicely parallels the flawed reasoning in the stimulus, with the presumption that the two teams must be the best, because they are comprised of the individuals who are the best. Again, individual attributes don't always translate in a team dynamic.

Answer choice (E): This choice, like the other incorrect answer choices above, is flawed but not in the same way as the stimulus. The flaw here is the presumption that the winner of the tournament is the "clearly best." Extenuating circumstances could easily make this a questionable claim. But this is not the same as the stimulus' flawed presumption that what is true for the individuals assembled must also be true for the team.

[NeverMissing]

I thought answer choice C paralleled the flawed reasoning, and I'd love some help understanding why it doesn't.

The argument's reasoning can be boiled down to: All members of a group possess a quality, so the group itself also possess that quality.

Answer choice C says:

A law firm hired staff for a family law department that mirror the qualities found in successful family law departments elsewhere. Therefore, the law firm has one of the best family law departments.

To my eye, this mirrors the "all members of a group have a quality, so the group itself has the quality" logic found in the stimulus. Where am I going astray with this answer choice? Is it that "successful" and "best" are not entirely synonymous terms? They seem, at worse, very close to synonymous--but perhaps it's not close enough for this question.

Thanks!

[AthenaDalton]

Hi NeverMissing,

Answer choice (C) uses a slightly different shift in reasoning from what we see in the stimulus.

In the stimulus, the reasoning is: individual members of the group are creative and efficient the group as a whole must be really creative and efficient

There is a clear part-to-whole comparison.

In answer choice (C), the reasoning looks like this: a staff of lawyers and support personnel (a group) was hired that was similar to successful groups elsewhere the group must be successful

In answer choice (C) we don't see a part-to-whole comparison. The comparison runs along the lines of, "this groups resembles that successful group, so this group must be successful like that group." It's more of a group-to-group comparison than an individual-to-group comparison.

For (C) to parallel the flawed reasoning in the stimulus, it would have to look like this: "this law firm convinced five extremely successful family lawyers and five efficient paralegals to combine to start a new group at this firm. Therefore this firm's family law group will be extremely successful and efficient."

I hope that helps clarify things for you. Good luck!

Athena

[jessicamorehead]

I chose the right answer, D, but I did find B tempting. I knew the flaw was "error of composition" aka assuming that what is true of those in a group is true of the group as a whole.

Answer B: I wasn't too crazy about the "several" in the beginning. If only some of them were given the incentive, then all of the salespeople would not even have that characteristic to share as a group. Is that why B is incorrect? I am still tempted by it because it says the incentive program is successful based on just one person being successful.

Answer D: I definitely saw the flaw clearly here and since there weren't any red flags, I chose this one.

[Daniel Stern]

The problem with answer choice B is that the conclusion is about the incentive program, not the group of salespeople who were given the incentives. Thus, B is not making an error of composition, applying the characteristics of a member of the group to the group as a whole. In B, as the original poster at the start of this thread points out, the one salesperson who exceeded the goals might have done so for some reason wholly unrelated to the incentive program.

Good luck in your studies,
Dan

[CJ12345:]

Hi, Powerscore,
I eliminate D in my first round since the stimulus talks about "one group" but AC D talks bout "two groups". Even though D has a similar flaw as the stimulus, it still contains important parts that do not match. I initially thought parallel questions in LR require a high degree of precision, but this question makes me wonder how precise we need to be when matching. What kind of mismatch is okay to tolerate and what is not?

Also, in this Q, I eliminate D and all other answers. Even though C seems like having some issues, I still choose C. Is there any way to avoid making this mistake in future LR? I found myself falling into the trap in which even though I knew there might be something wrong with an AC, since I had already eliminated the rest, I chose that answer and convinced myself that AC might not be the best but a better AC among all given.

[Jeff Wren]

Hi CJ,

What you are paralleling in these questions is the underlying reasoning.

It is true that in many cases the correct answer will be virtually identical in form to the argument in the stimulus except with a different topic. (In other words, you could just swap the nouns in the correct answer for the nouns in the stimulus, and it would be the exact same argument.)

However, there are times when the correct answer will be slightly different from the argument in the stimulus while still being the closest to the stimulus in terms of its underlying logical reasoning.

For example, in one of the parallel reasoning questions that we cover in lesson 8 of The PowerScore LSAT Course, the correct answer offers 2 better alternatives to what is being discussed while the argument in the stimulus only offers 1, but that is still the closest match and is therefore the correct answer.

The same thing applies to this question.

What you want to focus on is the specific flaw in the stimulus, here the part-to-whole flaw (or error of composition) and find the answer that best matches this flaw.

Don't rule out D simply because it involves two teams. The fact that there are two teams doesn't alter the underlying flaw made in this argument.