#5 - The railway authority inspector who recently thoroughly

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Parallel. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[greg160]

Is there a flaw in this argument?

[Robert Carroll]

Greg,

I don't think I'd say this is a flawed argument. The inspector checked thoroughly, and recently, and has no bias. The author is not committing to anything like complete reliance on the inspector's opinion. The conclusion just cautions people to be skeptical of an opinion opposed to the inspector's (apparently quite well-informed) opinion. I think it would be fair to say that, if we have two opinions that oppose each other, and good grounds for thinking that one opinion was formed on good (even if not perfect) evidence, we'd at least have reasons to be skeptical of the other opinion.

Robert Carroll

[oliviaguerra7]

Hello! Could someone please explain the process behind this parallel question and how you arrived at the correct answer? Thank you!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Olivia,

A complete explanation for this question is forthcoming, but hopefully this answer will help clear things up.

This question is a Parallel Reasoning question. In these questions, you're given an argument in the stimulus and then provided with a different argument in each answer choice. The correct answer will be the one that most closely matches the underlying reasoning in the stimulus. Ideally, the correct answer will basically be an identical argument with a different subject/topic. In other words, if you just swapped the nouns in the correct answer for the ones in the stimulus, you'd be left with the same argument.

In this stimulus, we have an unbiased authority (the railroad authority inspector) who recently and thoroughly examined the railroad tracks and found them to be in good condition. Based on this, the conclusion is that we should be suspicious of a different person's (the newspaper reporter) contrary claim that the tracks are in poor condition.

To parallel this reasoning, we're looking for an unbiased authority who thoroughly examines something and makes a claim about it. Based on this, the argument will conclude that we should be suspicious of another person's contrary claim about that thing.

Only Answer B matches these all of these parts. Here we have an unbiased authority ("a noted paleontologist who has no vested interest") who thoroughly examines something ("Gardner inspected the bones carefully") and makes a claim (the bones are not old enough to be from dinosaurs). Based on this, the argument concludes that we should be suspicious (or skeptical) of another person's contrary claim (Penwick's claim to have found dinosaur bones).

One helpful point is that the test makers often like to use synonyms in the correct answer so that it is not as easy to spot. Here, Answer B uses "no vested interest" for "no bias," "carefully" for "thoroughly," and "skeptical" for "suspicious."

Perhaps the simplest way to rule out the other answers is to focus on the "no bias" piece of the stimulus. Answers A and C don't mention bias at all. Answer D mentions that they are biased, but that it won't affect them. This isn't the same thing as what we have in the stimulus. Answer E mentions that the salesperson is biased, which again is not parallel to what we have in the stimulus.