0:06

Question two: All Labrador retrievers bark a great deal. All St. Bernard's bark

0:13

infrequently. Each of Rose's dogs is a cross between a Labrador Retriever and a

0:19

St. Bernard. Therefore, Rose's dogs are moderate barkers.

0:25

Alright so argument or facts and clearly we have an argument. Therefore structural indicator. Our

0:29

conclusion here is that Rose's dogs are moderate barkers. And how do we know that?

0:37

Well, our first premise is that all Labrador Retrievers bark a great deal and then

0:43

all St. Bernards bark infrequently. Rose's dogs are cross between these two types of

0:48

dogs therefore they must have moderate barking.

0:56

Just to break down this passage we know that 'all' is sufficient and necessary

1:00

terminology that introduces a sufficient condition. So our our sufficient condition would be 'Labrador

1:11

Retriever' and our necessary condition would be the other part of statement 'bark

1:17

a great deal'. You notice the next sentence we also have 'all'. So again 'all' introduces sufficient so St.

1:27

Bernard would be my sufficient condition. My necessary condition would be bark

1:32

infrequently. So basically we have this spectrum of barking and we have Labrador

1:47

Retrievers on one side and St. Bernard's on the other.

1:52

This is infrequently whereas Labrador Retrievers

1:55

bark a great deal. It tells us that Rose's dogs are a cross between these two

2:02

types of dogs, Labrador Retrievers and St. Bernards, to conclude that Rose's dogs

2:08

are moderate barkers. Clearly a flawed argument. How can we say that just

2:14

because Labrador Retrievers bark a great deal St Bernards Berndards bark infrequently

2:19

Rose's dogs are a cross. Therefore they must be moderate barkers. Doesn't make any sense

2:24

but now that we have a clear understanding of this argument and we've

2:28

identified that it is a flawed argument we turn our attention to the question stem.

2:32

Which one of the following uses flawed reasoning that most closely resembles

2:38

the flawed reasoning used in the argument above. So, you notice they point out for us that this is

2:43

a flawed argument just in case you didn't notice. Again this is a flawed

2:48

parallel resoning question. So now were going to look for an answer choice that has this exact same

2:57

flaw, basically taking two sufficient and necessary conditions where you have Labrador

3:03

Retriever sufficient for barking a great deal, St. Bernards sufficient for barking

3:07

infrequently. Then have a combination of these two sufficient conditions to conclude that

3:12

for some reason we're in the middle of the necessary conditions. Let's take a

3:17

look at (A). All students who study diligently make good grades but some

3:23

students who do not study diligently also make good grades. Jane studies

3:28

somewhat diligently therefore Jane makes somewhat good grades. You noticed that (A) while

3:35

flawed is not the same flaw that we saw in the passage so (A) would be eliminated.

3:39

You notice 'all' again introduces sufficient so if you study diligently you make good grades

3:45

and then tells us that Jane studies somewhat diligently so therefore she

3:54

makes somewhat good grades. So that clearly makes no sense just because you have somewhat

3:59

of the sufficient condition it doesn't mean you have somewhat of the necessary

4:02

condition but that is not the problem that we saw in our passage so (A) would

4:08

be eliminated. Moving to (B): All types A chemicals are extremely toxic to human

4:16

beings all type B chemicals are non-toxic to human beings this household

4:23

cleaner is a mixture of a type A chemical and a type B chemical therefore

4:28

this household cleaner is moderately toxic.

4:32

You notice just based on structure (B) seems like it's dead on but let's make

4:36

sure. Again we know 'all' introduces sufficient so if you are type (A) you are extremely toxic.

4:47

If you are type (B) you are not toxic. So again we have this spectrum. We have type (A) we have

4:59

to (B). Again extremely toxic while (B) is non-toxic. It theb tells us that this household cleaner is a mixture

5:11

of type A and type B to conclude that it is moderately toxic. And you

5:22

notice that is the exact same flaw in the passage. We took two sufficient

5:29

and necessary statements and then because something was a mix of the

5:35

sufficient conditions we concluded that we have the middle of the necessary conditions.

5:39

Right? Moderate Barkers. And in (B) we took the fact that A is extremely toxic B is

5:48

non-toxic this household cleaner is a mixture of A and B

5:51

therefore it is moderately toxic. Exact same flaw so (B) would be the correct

5:57

answer. But again just making sure (C): All students and Hanson school live in

6:04

Green County. All students at Edwards school live in Winn County. Members of the

6:10

Perry family attend both Hansen and Edwards. Therefore, some members of the

6:16

Perry family live in Greene County and some live in Winn County. Again (C)

6:22

is a valid argument so it clearly cannot work. We are looking for

6:28

flawed argument so (C) is out. Again you notice that 'all' again intoduces

6:36

So if you go to Hanson school that is sufficient for living in Greene County. If you go to

6:45

then you live in Winn County. Some members right of the Perry family attend

6:54

both Hanson and Edwards. So we have people at Hanson school. We have people

7:01

at Edwards School. And it takes that to conclude therefore we have some members

7:10

of the Perry family living in Greene County and some living in Winn County. It's a valid argument.

7:19

So (C) again would be eliminated just based on that we're looking for a flawed

7:24

argument. Moving to (D): All transcriptionists know shorthand. All

7:29

engineers know calculus. Bob has worked as both a transcriptionist and as an engineer.

7:35

Therefore Bob knows both shorthand and calculus. Again (D) is a valid argument. So how

7:42

could (D) be the correct answer? Again if you are a transcriptionist you know

7:46

shorthand. If you are an engineer you know calculus. Bob has worked both as a

7:53

transcriptionist and an engineer and take that to conclude that he knows

8:02

shorthand and he knows calculus. Again, valid argument

8:08

invoking sufficient to conclude necessary. But again not what we're looking for here.

8:14

We're looking for a flawed argument which brings us to (E): All of Kenisha's dresses

8:19

are very well made. All of Connie's dresses are very badly made. Half of the

8:24

dresses in this closet are very well made, and half of them are very badly made.

8:27

Therefore, half of the dresses in this closet are Kenisha's and half of them

8:31

are Connie's. Clearly a flawed argument. But is it the same flaw? You notice that it is

8:40

not. The problem here is that were saying if you were made by Keisha, Keisha's dresses are very

8:47

well made. It then tells us that all of Connie's dresses are very poorly made or very badly made.

9:04

Half of the dresses in this closet are very well made and half of them are

9:09

very badly made. It then takes that to conclude that half of them are Kenisha's

9:15

and half of them are Connie's but again the existence of the necessary condition

9:18

tells us nothing about whether sufficient is present or not. Again just because

9:23

I am a vegetable it doesn't necessarily mean I'm a carrot. We know all carrots are vegetables but you

9:30

cannot say because something is a vegetable it is also a carrot. That is

9:34

what's happening in (E). Don't just reverse but

9:39

you notice again not the flaw we saw in the passage so (E) is eliminated.