- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:00 am
#73602
Complete Question Explanation
Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (A).
The argument is based on Formal Logic, which bears a strong resemblance to Conditional Reasoning but which differs in one important respect: where conditional reasoning is absolute and guaranteed (the sufficient condition guarantees the necessary condition), in formal logic the relationship is less than 100% certain. Most commonly, Formal Logic is indicated by the use of words like "some" and "most."
We are told in the stimulus that most of the people who disapprove of the Prime Minister share a certain trait (their disapproval is based on opposition to a tax increase). One person, we are told, does not share that trait, and the author concludes that she probably approves of the Prime Minister. The problem is that without knowing more about the group of people who DO approve, or if there are in fact any people who do, we cannot know the probability of Theresa being in that other group. (For more about the important aspects of this stimulus that must be paralleled in the correct answer, see Clay's excellent summary in this thread.) Another problem is that the argument ignores the possibility that there exists a third group, people who neither approve nor disapprove, and this is a type of False Dilemma.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Like in the stimulus, we have a group of people most of whom share a certain trait, a person who does not share that trait, and a conclusion that the person is probably in an opposite group. The Formal Logic flaw is there, because we know nothing about the size or characteristics, or even the existence, of that opposite group, and the False Dilemma is also present because the author failed to consider a possible third group who are neutral on the subject.
Answer choice (B): A bit of a shell game happens in this answer choice. Instead of a premise that the person does not share the popular trait and a conclusion that she is in a different group, we have a premise that she is in a different group and a conclusion that she does not share that trait. There is also no false dilemma present.
Answer choice (C): The same shell game found in answer B is present in this answer, with the person in question being in a different group and the author then concluding that they do not share the popular trait. This is backwards compared to what happened in the stimulus.
Answer choice (D): This answer actually looks valid, and thus cannot be parallel to the flawed argument in the stimulus. Here, we have someone who IS in the group being discussed, and a conclusion that she probably shares the trait that most members of the group share.
Answer choice (E): Here we have someone who IS a member of the group in question, which already makes it a bad answer, since we want a conclusion that they are probably in an opposing group. The conclusion is flawed, in that it changes terms from the belief being based on a news report to a claim about having actually seen the report (instead, of, say, hearing about the report second-hand).
Parallel Flaw. The correct answer choice is (A).
The argument is based on Formal Logic, which bears a strong resemblance to Conditional Reasoning but which differs in one important respect: where conditional reasoning is absolute and guaranteed (the sufficient condition guarantees the necessary condition), in formal logic the relationship is less than 100% certain. Most commonly, Formal Logic is indicated by the use of words like "some" and "most."
We are told in the stimulus that most of the people who disapprove of the Prime Minister share a certain trait (their disapproval is based on opposition to a tax increase). One person, we are told, does not share that trait, and the author concludes that she probably approves of the Prime Minister. The problem is that without knowing more about the group of people who DO approve, or if there are in fact any people who do, we cannot know the probability of Theresa being in that other group. (For more about the important aspects of this stimulus that must be paralleled in the correct answer, see Clay's excellent summary in this thread.) Another problem is that the argument ignores the possibility that there exists a third group, people who neither approve nor disapprove, and this is a type of False Dilemma.
Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Like in the stimulus, we have a group of people most of whom share a certain trait, a person who does not share that trait, and a conclusion that the person is probably in an opposite group. The Formal Logic flaw is there, because we know nothing about the size or characteristics, or even the existence, of that opposite group, and the False Dilemma is also present because the author failed to consider a possible third group who are neutral on the subject.
Answer choice (B): A bit of a shell game happens in this answer choice. Instead of a premise that the person does not share the popular trait and a conclusion that she is in a different group, we have a premise that she is in a different group and a conclusion that she does not share that trait. There is also no false dilemma present.
Answer choice (C): The same shell game found in answer B is present in this answer, with the person in question being in a different group and the author then concluding that they do not share the popular trait. This is backwards compared to what happened in the stimulus.
Answer choice (D): This answer actually looks valid, and thus cannot be parallel to the flawed argument in the stimulus. Here, we have someone who IS in the group being discussed, and a conclusion that she probably shares the trait that most members of the group share.
Answer choice (E): Here we have someone who IS a member of the group in question, which already makes it a bad answer, since we want a conclusion that they are probably in an opposing group. The conclusion is flawed, in that it changes terms from the belief being based on a news report to a claim about having actually seen the report (instead, of, say, hearing about the report second-hand).
disapprove of prime minister overall
approve of prime minister overall (subscript Theresa)