Q21 - Opposition leader: Our country

[aileenann]

This question wants us to duplicate the flaw in the original argument in a new argument answer choice. Here the most accurate and efficient way to get through the answer choices is first to understand the original argument in a highly abstract way that will help us see the skeleton of the logic rather than the distractions of the content.

Here's how I'd boil down the argument itself:

We have the least fair X system in group Y.
Therefore the most important part of X system is the worst in group Y and should not be copied.

The flaw here seems to be assuming that is what is true of the whole is true of each subset.

Let's go through our answer choices and see if anything matches up to what we have here.

(A) People who live in group Y tend to be more X than people who do not live in group Y. Therefore a specific example of someone born in group Y will be more X than someone not born in group Y. Nope, this doesn't look like what we are looking for. For one thing this has its own flaw but now the same flaw as our argument. The flaw here is that it mistakes something that is probably true (the premises are related to a tendency) for something that is definitely true (in the assumption that anyone in a particular town will be more educated than anyone not in a town). This argument is not concerned with subsets at all.

(B) At a certain group Y, either X or Y is the most demanding. Therefore a particular subset of X or Y is the most demanding. This isn't precisely what we're looking for (why are there two majors they are talking about instead of just one?), but it *does* repeat the flaw - that is namely mistaking the properties of a system for the property of a subset of that system. I'll keep it but also move on to the other answer choices.

(C) For many years, a company has made the best X. Therefore since it uses a lot of the same stuff to make Y, Y must be the best. This also does not have a subset conflation issue as in the original argument we are looking for.

(D) X are closely related to Y. Therefore even though they (X) are far more Z than Y, their W are the same as Y. Basically there is no way this is the answer. It's far more complicated than the argument we originally looked to, and I didn't see any subsets in there unless we assume that cats are a subset of tigers or vice versa.

(E) This one is fairly simple, so I won't even put it into abstracted form. It doesn't have a subset conflation issue, though it does have a flaw (do you see what it is? care to post and share with us?)

Therefore, even if (B) wasn't precisely what we wanted, it now looks pretty good. That's our answer, and it's a good lesson in not eliminating answer choices overly quickly, especially on the difficult questions that come up later in the LR sections.

[cyruswhittaker]

Could you help me to better clarify my understanding A in terms of subsets?

I understand the flaw you described (probably vs. "is"), but when I did this question, I considered Maureen to be a small, one-person subset of the bigger group (residents).

Also, for E, is the flaw that it forms an unwarranted relationship between the chances of being thrown out and the "best" of winning?

Thanks!

[clarafok]

Hello,

i'm also kind of confused about this question...

can't we say that (B) is also mistaking something that is probably true for something that is definitely true (either the introductory course in philosophy or the introductory course in engineering is the most demanding introductory-level course at that college)?

it would be great if you could clarify!

thanks!

[bbirdwell]

First of all, the original essentially says this:
This soup is the worst soup at the restaurant and shouldn't be served at other restaurants. Therefore, the potatoes in this soup are the worst at the restaurant and should not be used at other restaurants.

See the "part vs whole" thing going on? "The whole thing is awful, therefore this little piece is awful, too."

I don't think the flaw in (A) is really about "probably vs. is." The first part of it is about residents of medium-sized towns. Maureen was born in such a town, but that doesn't mean she is a resident, meaning that she currently lives there. For all we know, she was born there and then moved to Tokyo, where she is a resident. This is certainly flawed, but not in the same way.

(E) is wrong in a number of ways. First of all, by initiating a comparison between "1st and 2nd", it no longer mimics teh structure of the original. It's also flawed in the way you mentioned -- chances of being thrown out immediately vs. best chance of winning.

Now let's look again at (B). There's nothing "probably" in it -- we must accept as fact that one of those two majors is the most demanding at the college. The argument then concludes that one little course in one of those majors must be the most demanding at the college. This is the same "part vs whole" structure of the original. The "either" is just thrown in for spice and distraction.

[interestedintacos]

Very well done, as always, BBirdwell. Choice A is flawed because of what you mentioned. What people were thinking, of course, is that it contains another flaw--making an unwarranted jump from an average to a claim about specifics--i.e. on average residents of big towns are smarter than residents of small towns, thus Tom, who lives in a big town, is smarter than John, who lives in a small town.

Of course, even if the choice had that latter flaw it would not be parallel to the flaw in the stimulus: that because one set has a certain property, any member of the set must also have that property.

[canylaw]

Can someone pls eleborate on answer choice B please.

[zhanga]

Answer choice B is correct because it mimics the original flaw of assuming what is true for a group must be true for the individuals of that group.

B states that at a certain college, either philosophy or engineering is the most demanding major and concludes that either the introductory course in philosophy or engineering is the most demanding intro level course at that college.

We only know that as a whole the philosophy or engineering major is the most demanding at the college, it could be just their higher level courses are extremely difficult and the intro level ones are relatively easy. So the flaw is in assuming that intro level courses must be demanding just because as a whole the major is demanding.

Does that clarify B for you?

[zainrizvi]

Is it safe to say that for parallel flaw questions you should begin by eliminating choices based on whether they have the flaw or not. If two of them both have the flaw, THEN begin to look for errors in scope shift/quantifier switch/verb switch.

I ask because the "either/or" construction was missing here. In some parallel flaws Q, there are differences in verbs(e.g ARE vs MUST).

Yet at the same time I've encountered parallel flaw Qs with two answer choices containing the flaw, but only one matching the parallel quantifier.

[maryadkins]

Is it safe to say that for parallel flaw questions you should begin by eliminating choices based on whether they have the flaw or not. If two of them both have the flaw, THEN begin to look for errors in scope shift/quantifier switch/verb switch.

Yes, good method--which basically boils down to looking to rule out the ones that clearly aren't matching, then getting into specifics.

[americano1990]

For those of you who still are thinking about choice A.

I would say that the easiest way to eliminate would be the relative nature of the language.

Notice that in the stimulus, it says that the "court system" is the LEAST FAIR so the "high court" would also be the LEAST fair.

Same with the correct answer (B): "P or E" is the MOST DEMANDING so "intro P or intro E" would also be the MOST DEMANDING.

But in choice (A), "residents of medium sized town" are MORE highly educated THAN some other group.....hm....see wut i mean?

So in itself, its a really bad start. I think this would be the surest way to get rid of choice A.

[nflamel69]

I want to add something to the flaw of E. I actually thought that this choice had the flaw of false choice besides the mismatch. If we accept that the fact that the chance of throwing out lessens the chance of winning, it doesn't establish that the second court will have the highest chance, what if third court has a better chance? what do you guys think?

[keonheecho]

It seems to me that if there was no shift from residents to being born in the town, that this could be a more viable contender, because it would then be shifting from residents in general to one individual. Is this true?

And is it safe to say that the correct answer choice in parallel flaw questions will have ONLY the flaw in question, or is it possible for the correct answer to have more than one flaw that was never used in the stimulus?

Thank you

[maryadkins]

So we're talking about (A), for clarity...

I think you are right, that if the shift between being a resident and being born in the town were not there, and we were just told that Maureen is a resident, (A) would be a better answer.

That said, I still think the flaw would not match as well as (B). "Residents" in the town being smart is STILL referring to the individuals in the town, of which Maureen is one. It's not like it says, "The town won the smartest town competition." In other words, it's almost a bit of a BETTER argument than the stimulus, because the premise in (A) actually does mention the individual residents, although there's still a flaw since we don't know if Maureen is one of the smart ones (and there is the whole "average" issue). (I just realized I've been saying "smart" not "highly educated," but you get it. )

But in short, yes, again, in your hypo, (A) is a better answer than it currently is.

And is it safe to say that the correct answer choice in parallel flaw questions will have ONLY the flaw in question, or is it possible for the correct answer to have more than one flaw that was never used in the stimulus?

Look for the one that only has the same flaw, not additional flaws. If you end up eliminating all of them, you can recruit one back and it may have an extra flaw. Remember, you're being asked for the argument that is MOST similar. That means it might not be perfect...but it will be the one that is closest to it.

[keonheecho]

So we're talking about (A), for clarity...

I think you are right, that if the shift between being a resident and being born in the town were not there, and we were just told that Maureen is a resident, (A) would be a better answer.

That said, I still think the flaw would not match as well as (B). "Residents" in the town being smart is STILL referring to the individuals in the town, of which Maureen is one. It's not like it says, "The town won the smartest town competition." In other words, it's almost a bit of a BETTER argument than the stimulus, because the premise in (A) actually does mention the individual residents, although there's still a flaw since we don't know if Maureen is one of the smart ones (and there is the whole "average" issue). (I just realized I've been saying "smart" not "highly educated," but you get it. )

But in short, yes, again, in your hypo, (A) is a better answer than it currently is.

And is it safe to say that the correct answer choice in parallel flaw questions will have ONLY the flaw in question, or is it possible for the correct answer to have more than one flaw that was never used in the stimulus?

Look for the one that only has the same flaw, not additional flaws. If you end up eliminating all of them, you can recruit one back and it may have an extra flaw. Remember, you're being asked for the argument that is MOST similar. That means it might not be perfect...but it will be the one that is closest to it.

This helps a lot. Thank you

[LolaC289]

Although there may be many ways to look at why (B) is the answer and (A) is not, I think it is still important to compare them in nature.

As mentioned, the flaw in (A) is an "Average to Specific" flaw, while the flaw in our stimulus and in (B) is a "Whole to Part" flaw. They look alike in a sense that they all contain a "group" in a sense and both attribute a quality to an individual, but they differ in the nature of that quality itself.

In the "whole to part" flaw, although the quality may not be directly attributed to the parts, that quality is indeed enjoyed by the group and the group can thus be said to show a certain tendency by having that quality.
While in the "average to part" flaw, the quality can be attribute to neither of that group or the individuals. The reason is because in calculating a mean (average), we are simply dividing things into numerical value,whereas a quality is not dividable in nature.

For example. Country X want is choosing a 8-person basketball team entirely from town A or else town B, with the height requirement of 1.70 meters or above to the team's members.

Town A consists of 10 townspeople whose height are respectively: 1.0m 1.0m 1.0m 1.0m 1.0m 1.0m 8.0m and 8.0m, the average height is 2.2m, but only 2 of them satisfies the height requirement and thus can't be chosen as the b-ball team. (the height number is a little bit crazy in here...but you get it)

Town B consists of 10 townspeople whose height that are all 1.69m 1.69m 1.71m 1.71m 1.71m 1.71m 1.71m 1.71m 1.71m and 1.71m. The average height is obviously less than that of Town A , but 8 of them satisfies the height requirement and can be chosen as the b-ball team.

Thus, if we regard "the suitable for a b-ball team" as a quality, though Town A has a higher height average, it can't be said to has this quality, both to Town A as a whole (the number of qualified townspeople is not enough for the team), nor to individual townspeople in Town A (8 of them don't satisfy that requirement). The reason why is, average number reflects nothing about a group or its members in the first place.

Town B actually has that quality as group. It has 8 people satisfy the requirement and thus can be chosen as the team. But we can't attribute that quality to each townspeople in Town B because there are still two who don't share this quality.

Though share some common traits, the Whole to Part flaw is different with the Average to Specific flaw in nature.