#14 - The commissioner has announced that Judge Khalid, who

[cfu1]

I'm having trouble breaking down and understanding the question. I'm also not sure how the passage relates to the correct answer (D)? The logic behind the two examples seem unrelated.

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, cfu1 - let me see if I can shed a little light for you.

The stem asks us to find an answer that contains flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning in the stimulus. In other words, which answer choice makes the same kind of mistake that the stimulus made? The stem is telling you in no uncertain terms that the argument presented is a bad one, so start there. In your own words, what is wrong with the argument about the judge? Once you have prephrased that flaw, strip away the details - forget about judges and panels and parties to the dispute - what is the structure of the flawed reasoning? Try putting it in abstract terms, like "the author assumes that just because one thing is sufficient for another that the second thing is sufficient for the first thing" or "the author assumes that because two things are correlated that one of the things must have caused the other one."

Now, once you have that abstraction of the stimulus firmly in mind, find an answer that has the same problem. Not just any problem, but the exact same problem, with the same abstraction.

Take another look at it that way, and you will see that the stimulus and D both boil down to the same thing, and none of the other answers does. I won't give it away here or put a label on it just yet, so I want you to come back and tell us what you came up with and see if it cleared things up. If not, then we'll help out a little more.

Good luck!

[cfu1]

Hi Adam, thanks for your response!

I went back and reread the question, and to summarize it in my own words, I'd say that the author's logic is flawed because he's assuming that Judge Khalid's decision on the Simdon labor dispute will be reasonable and fair, just because the panel that Judge Khalid served on for the Amlec labor dispute was reasonable and fair?

This relates to (D) because Ula Borg's performance is assumed based on Arcande Realty's overall performance?

[Robert Carroll]

cfu1,

I think you have it. The flawed reasoning in the stimulus and answer choice (D) is based on erroneously inferring something is true of a part from the fact that it's true of the whole.

Robert Carroll

[Tony_Stark]

Hey, I was wondering if someone could explain why C is not correct.

Thanks in advance.

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Tony,

The stimulus makes the error of assuming that what is true of the whole (that the 7-member board reached a fair decision) is also true of a part of the whole (one member of the board will also reach a fair decision).

Answer choice (D), the correct answer, tells us that since the whole (Arcande Realty) has seen a decline in home sales, then a part of that whole (Ula Borg) has also sold fewer homes this year than last. This is an exact parallel of the flaw in the stimulus: what's true of the whole must be true of a part.

Answer choice (C) doesn't proceed in the same linear fashion as the stimulus. This answer choice tells us that the whole (a music school) is known for having excellent conducting faculty, and also that Jorge Diaz (the part) is a teacher at that school. We are also told that Jorge Diaz is an excellent teacher. From these facts, answer choice (C) concludes that Jorge Diaz must be a member of the faculty. This line of reasoning includes additional elements from what we saw in the stimulus.

Answer choice (C) would parallel the stimulus if it were written like this: "Jorge Diaz is a teacher at a school known for having excellent teachers. Therefore, Jorge Diaz must be an excellent teacher." However, the additional elements and jumps in reasoning (that since Jorge Diaz is an excellent teacher, he must also be a faculty member) make answer choice (C) too dissimilar from the stimulus to be a correct answer.

I hope this clears things up. Good luck studying!

Athena Dalton

[stephaniemaui]

Hi,

I am wondering why E is incorrect. I selected D but I was guessing between D and E. In E, it seems like the reasoning in that argument assumes that just because Evelyn is a part of a society that feels a certain way, she also feels the same way. That seems to be the same reasoning in answer choice D and the stimulus. That is the flaw that the author assumes that just because group has a certain characteristic, each member of that group has the same characteristic.

thanks in advance

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, Stephanie!

You're absolutely right! There is a fallacy of division in answer choice (E) as well, but the problem is that (E) throws in a Shell Game just to be tricky.

The society supported designating the First National Bank building a historical landmark, but then the argument concludes that Evelyn George will support designating the city hall a landmark as well.

We might note that in the stimulus the premise and the conclusion bring up two different scenarios as well (the Amlec dispute and the Simdon dispute). However, the central characteristic of the party making the decision remains the same: whether or not the party is "reasonable/fair." In other words, even though the conclusion discusses two different circumstances, there is no Shell Game shift about the parties' fairness.

In answer choice (E), we cannot assume that the First National Bank building and City Hall are commensurable in all respects. Thus, answer choice (E) has two major flaws, instead of one as in the stimulus, so it is not the credited response.

I hope this helps!

[taxstonefromthefeds]

I was wondering if AC E is incorrect because of the term "unanimously"? Unanimously means that everyone on the board supported the designation of the First National Bank building. So, if Evelyn was on the board, she would have voted in support.

Thanks!

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi.

That's an interesting question. The term "unanimously" in answer choice (E) does mean that every member supported designation the First National Bank a historic monument. And since Evelyn is a member, that would mean she too supported that action. However, the conclusion of answer choice (E) does not match the argument. It draws a conclusion about city hall. Because of the shift, the conclusion is not supported.

Hope that helps!

Rachael