- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Fri Jan 21, 2011 12:00 am
#36823
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
Based on the premise that Dr. Grippen’s and Dr. Heissmann’s theories predict mutually exclusive
outcomes, the author concludes that the planned experiment will confirm one theory at the expense of
the other.
The reasoning is flawed, because it ignores the possibility that the experiment might disprove both theories. There is no reason to presume that one of the theories must be confirmed. Since we are asked to
parallel the flaw, we must find a choice that similarly neglects the possibility of two negative evaluations.
Answer choice (A): This reasoning is fairly sound. If David and Jane often disagree, at least one of their
methods is probably flawed. This choice does not parallel the reasoning in the stimulus, because at least
one in this case means either one or both.
Answer choice (B): The reasoning in this choice is bad, but only because it neglects the possibility that
both David and Jane agree on the description of the tree, but simply disagree over its name, which is not
a similar flaw.
Answer choice (C): This choice is wrong, because it ignores that even if David is one tree better, a
difference of one tree is really not enough to decide who is better at identifying trees. However, the two
flaws are not analogous, so this choice is wrong.
Answer choice (D): The reasoning in this choice is sound. Examining the whole forest would establish
whether David is correct to believe there are more beeches than elms in the forest, so this response
contains no logical flaw and is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Both David and Jane could be wrong, so Maria
does not have to confirm either of these judgments, but the choice ignores that possibility. That is exactly
the flaw in the stimulus. In this case, David and Jane are the scientists, and Maria is the experiment.
Parallel Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)
Based on the premise that Dr. Grippen’s and Dr. Heissmann’s theories predict mutually exclusive
outcomes, the author concludes that the planned experiment will confirm one theory at the expense of
the other.
The reasoning is flawed, because it ignores the possibility that the experiment might disprove both theories. There is no reason to presume that one of the theories must be confirmed. Since we are asked to
parallel the flaw, we must find a choice that similarly neglects the possibility of two negative evaluations.
Answer choice (A): This reasoning is fairly sound. If David and Jane often disagree, at least one of their
methods is probably flawed. This choice does not parallel the reasoning in the stimulus, because at least
one in this case means either one or both.
Answer choice (B): The reasoning in this choice is bad, but only because it neglects the possibility that
both David and Jane agree on the description of the tree, but simply disagree over its name, which is not
a similar flaw.
Answer choice (C): This choice is wrong, because it ignores that even if David is one tree better, a
difference of one tree is really not enough to decide who is better at identifying trees. However, the two
flaws are not analogous, so this choice is wrong.
Answer choice (D): The reasoning in this choice is sound. Examining the whole forest would establish
whether David is correct to believe there are more beeches than elms in the forest, so this response
contains no logical flaw and is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Both David and Jane could be wrong, so Maria
does not have to confirm either of these judgments, but the choice ignores that possibility. That is exactly
the flaw in the stimulus. In this case, David and Jane are the scientists, and Maria is the experiment.
