#23 - Critic: Journalists should have reasonable knowledge

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[loveydog]

Why is E) wrong here? I was in between B and E and I picked E in the end because I thought that the result of the mistake was stronger here. Is it because the language in B) "as a case in point" is more akin to "for example" in the stimulus?

Thank you!

[James Finch]

Hi Loveydog,

The best way to solve a Parallel Reasoning question is to break down the stimulus into its constituent parts and find the answer choice that has the same exact parts. Here we're given a conditional conclusion:

Journalist Should Have Reasonable Knowledge Statistics

based on two premises. First, another conditional statement:

Reasonable Knowledge Statistics Can Make Errors

and then an actual situation that complies with the conditional premise:

Reasonable Knowledge StatisticsJournalist ErrorJournalist

So what we need to look for is an answer choice that gives a conditional premise, then another premise illustrating an example of the conditional relationship at work, then finally concludes the contrapositive of the example premise (albeit not necessarily in that order).

(B) gives us:

Conclusion: School Should Have Recess Time

Checks out, same exact scope as the conclusion in the stimulus. It continues with a premise:

Recess Time Children Can Incur Health Risks

So far, so good, looks exactly the same as the stimulus. Lastly, we have the example premise:

Recess TimeA School Students Less Fit

Looks like a 1:1 match with the stimulus. Contrast this to (E):

Conclusion: Toy Manufacturer Should Record on Toy

Ok so far, then the premise:

Record on Toy Easily Discard Package Lose Information Respond to Recalls

And this is where it diverges. We're only given one long conditional chain, rather than a conditional statement and an example of that conditional playing out.

Hope that clears things up!

[Kennedv_]

I eliminated B and here is my thought process:

In the stimulus, if a journalist does not have knowledge about statistics then an error can be made (misinforming). In the example, you can say there is a lack of knowledge that resulted in an error being made (misinforming). The same kind of error stayed consistent.

In answer choice B I saw that if kids don't have recess then they will "incur health risks" and in the example it said that if they don't have recess then they will be "less physically fit." I thought that because one part of the argument had one effect and the other part had another effect it could be flawed.

So can you kind of explain how those two different effects don't mean anything for it to be the correct answer? (If that makes sense)

Thank you!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Kennedv_!

Being "less physically fit" is an example of a "health risk due to insufficient exercise" in the same way that "erroneously reporting that a certain candidate would win an election" is an example of "misinforming the public." So it matches the stimulus above because both say that a not having a thing will have consequences, and then give an example of a specific instance of those consequences.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[jm123]

Can we eliminate all the wrong answers in this question because none of them provides a specific example like the stimulus does to back up its argument?

[Adam Tyson]

In short, jm123, yes! In this case, since the argument is based in part on a specific example, in order to "double the premises" and also to match the type of reasoning (argument by way of example), we need a specific example in the correct answer. The lack of such examples in the other four answers pretty well dooms them all.