Insurance industry statistics demonstrate that cars with alarms or other antitheft devices are more likely to be stol...
Julie-VAugust 7, 2019
Paralleling to the Stimulus
Hi LSAT Max,
I read the stimulus breakdown as well as the answer explanation for (C) and why it would be the correct answer.
Could you also explain why the parallel in word choice/tone doesn't matter when choosing (C)? For example, the stimulus' premise uses "more likely" while its conclusion has an absolute "do not".
Although you explained why the flaw is the poor comparison, I'd like to know why in this case we would overlook the probabilistic vs. absolute tone, as well as when to know what specific components of the argument we should focus on when it comes to Flawed Parallel reasoning questions.
Thanks!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
"Only if" generally introduces a necessary condition, so in a statement:
A only if B,
B is a necessary condition, thus if B is false, A is also false:
~ B - > ~A ~HR -> ~ GSS
IF NOT Helen resigns THEN NOT George shift supervisor
and A is a sufficient condition, thus if A is true, B must also be true:
A -> B GSS -> HR
The whole argument can be diagrammed as:
GSS ->HR HR _________ GSS
This is a flawed argument that exhibits a logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.
Does this make sense?
Let me know if you have any further questions.
IrinaAugust 7, 2019
@Julie,
I would recommend focusing on the type of flaw when approaching flawed parallel reasoning questions. The exact language, e.g. using "more likely" vs. "do not" vs. "will definitely" is irrelevant as long as the set of argument exhibits the same logical flaw.
For this specific question, the argument equates correlation with causation ignoring an alternative explanation aka a confounding variable, e.g. more expensive cars are more likely to have antitheft devices and are more likely to get stolen.
(C) exhibits the same logical flaw. It is more likely that people who enjoy reading/ read more use libraries more often and purchase more books even though going to the library and purchasing more books that non-goers appear correlated.
