#25 - Advertisement: The dental profession knows that

[James Finch]

Hi Leela,

Correct answer choices for parallel flaw questions will exhibit the same flaw as the stimulus, but all other factors, such as order in which the conclusion and premises are presented or subject matter may differ. In this case, we have two flaws: a small, not necessarily representative sample, the result of which is used to draw an overly broad conclusion. In the stimulus, this is a problem of surveying only 5 dentists, who only claim that the product in question is the best toothpaste for fighting cavities, not necessarily the best way to fight cavities overall (one could think of other ways, like cutting sugar out of one's diet).

Answer choice (B) fails to parallel the stimulus immediately, as it only claims that "some" voters think Gomez is the best. This qualification isn't present in the original stimulus, and is actually supported by the survey, as the survey participants alone could comprise "some voters." Because the logical force of the conclusion is so weak here, only one of the flaws, the assumption that best policies equals best candidate, is present.

Answer choice (D) does parallel the stimulus by having both flawed elements present: a potentially unrepresentative survey used to claim that all voters "know" Gomez is the best because ten agreed that his policies would help the nation more than any other policies (which ignores all other factors about the candidate, such as viability of implementing said policies, individual corruption, etc.). So here, as in the stimulus, the conclusion is far to strong for the essentially meaningless evidence to support.

Hope this clears things up!

[saygracealways]

Hi Powerscore,

While I certainly do understand the small sample size error, would it also be correct to pre-phrase the second flaw as a part to whole flaw? I understand upon reading the forum that the advertisement exaggerated the dentists' response because the dentists said the toothpaste had the most effective formula, but the ad concluded that the toothpaste is the "best way to fight cavities". But, the reason I pre-phrased the flaw as part to whole was because the property of the part (formula in Blizzard toothpaste is the most effective in fighting cavities) was carried to the property of the whole (Blizzard toothpaste is the most effective in fighting cavities).

Similarly for (D) - the part to whole flaw carries from the POLICY Gomez is committed to that would most effectively would help the nation (part) to GOMEZ being the politician who would best help the nation (whole). Just because his policy would best help nation doesn't mean that he himself would best help the nation.

Would you please let me know if my reasoning is incorrect? Perhaps it's because I didn't know how else to pre-phrase this flaw, or maybe I'm not completely understanding what a part to whole flaw is?

Either way I did answer this question correctly during timed conditions. Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

My prephrase matched yours, saygracealways! I also saw that second flaw as something like a part-to-whole problem. It also felt a bit like a "some evidence" flaw. For all we know, there are a LOT of toothpastes that use that same formula, so that isn't reliable evidence that one toothpaste with that formula is the best (and that also fails to consider other aspects of the toothpaste that might offset the benefits of the good formula). Similarly, there many be many candidates who are committed to the same policies as Gomez, and Gomez may have some negative characteristics that offset the benefits of his policies.

Great work!