#7 - Party X has recently been accused by its opposition

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (C)

Here, the stimulus author discusses accusations against Party X made recently by Party Y, its opposition. Party Y alleges that Party X has illegally accepted international campaign contributions. The author does not address whether or not Party X has actually accepted the alleged contributions, but concludes that Party Y’s accusations are “ill-founded.” The only support offered for this conclusion is the fact that Party Y violated campaign laws three years earlier.

This argument is flawed, because it fails to provide any actual support for the conclusion. Instead, it focuses on a collateral issue, namely Party Y’s own hypocrisy in raising the allegation. This is a Parallel Flaw question. Our prephrase is that the correct answer choice will contain an argument in which an allegation is made and the author will conclude the argument is ill founded solely based on the hypocrisy of the person or group making the allegation.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice may initially be attractive because it has the same subject matter, the violation of campaign laws. However, do not be tricked by this similarity: the stimulus topic is irrelevant to the reasoning used in the stimulus. Here, the author actually addresses the substance of the allegation, conceding the violation of law, but arguing that the laws being violated are unjust. This is unlike the argument in the stimulus, in which the author did not address the substance of the allegation, and merely deflected attention to the accuser’s hypocrisy.

Answer choice (B): Another incorrect answer choice, this choice is tempting because it discusses the type of hypocrisy displayed in the stimulus. However, this is a Parallel Flaw question, not a Flaw in the Reasoning question. Our task is to duplicate the reasoning in the stimulus, not describe it. Here, the conclusion, that the “accusations show the plaintiff to be hypocritical,” does not match the conclusion in the stimulus, that the accusations themselves are ill founded.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice because it displays the same flawed logical structure that we saw in the stimulus. The author concludes that the accusations are ill founded because of the plaintiff’s own, similar violations in the past.

Answer choice (D): Here, the author does not point to the accuser’s hypocrisy as the reason why the allegations are ill-founded. Rather, the author claims that the accusations are ill founded because they are an attempt to stir up controversy. While the argument in this answer choice is flawed, it is flawed in a way unlike the flaw that occurred in the stimulus.

Answer choice (E): In this case, the answer choice is incorrect because the author actually addresses the substance of the accusation, unlike the argument in the stimulus.

[Cking14]

Hi,

I flat out did not understand this question. I understood the stimulus, but none of the answer choices looked correct. I finally gave up and just went with answer choice (E). Can someone why answer choice (C) is correct here?

Thanks!
Chris

[David Boyle]

Hi,

I flat out did not understand this question. I understood the stimulus, but none of the answer choices looked correct. I finally gave up and just went with answer choice (E). Can someone why answer choice (C) is correct here?

Thanks!
Chris

Hello,

A problem with answer E is that it may be valid (whereas we want a flawed argument), e.g., "This accusation is ill founded, however, because it attacks the defendant’s motivations instead of addressing the arguments [etc.]" is a fairly good description of the "source argument" flaw, the flaw of attacking somebody personally rather than their arguments.
So we want an answer that encapsulates that flaw, instead of describing it! Answer C does show that flaw, just like the stimulus, so is correct.

David

[jlam061695]

I understand why C is the better answer, but can someone explain to me why B is incorrect? Is B incorrect because it states that the "accusations show the plaintiff to be hypocritical" rather than stating that the "accusations are ill founded"?

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi jlam,

I think a pre-phrase can help a lot with questions like this one. Here, I'm going to pre-phrase in very general terms the argument as I see it, and try to match an answer choice to that. My pre-phrase might look something like this:
If someone accuses someone else of some wrongdoing, but the accuser is himself guilty of wrongdoing, then the accusation is unfounded.

C matches perfectly; P accuses D of wrongdoing, but P is guilty of the same wrongdoing, so the accusation is unfounded.

B doesn't match at all. It starts out right: P accuses D of wrongdoing, and P is guilty of the same wrongdoing. But then we get off-track, for just the reason you identified: the conclusion is that P is hypocritical. Nothing about whether the accusations are well-founded.

Good work working this one through!

[okjoannawow]

Hi,

C was one of my contenders but unfortunately, B swayed me in the wrong direction. I understand why B was wrong and why C was right. The reason why I was originally offset from C was because of the mention of "Courts have declared such violations illegal." Going forward, if I encounter an additional premise in parallel flaw questions that might not have been mentioned in the stim, should I still consider them as a contender?

Thank you!

[Brook Miscoski]

okjoannawow,

On parallel questions, you are looking for differences to eliminate answer choices. On some of the more difficult questions, the complexity of the wording may make it more chancy to eliminate a choice on the first run when the choice is very logically similar to the stimulus. What I recommend is that you eliminate on grounds like you've mentioned on the second pass. The reason you identify--a greater number of premises than in the stimulus--is a good reason to eliminate the choice if your identification is accurate and there is another choice that works.