This question is what we call a parallel flaw method reasoning question. The question is then, let's read this together,

which one of the following uses flawed reasoning that most closely resembles a flawed reasoning used in the argument above?

So they're telling us that the argument above in the stimulus uses flawed reasoning,

and they're saying for the answer choices, find the answer choice that uses the same flawed reasoning.

You know, they say most closely resembles,

but the right answer choice will be the same and the others will be just completely wrong.

Okay, and each of Rosa's dogs is a cross between a Labrador and a St. Bernard. Therefore what?

So this is the argument. I might have to presume some knowledge here since you guys have not

gone through the actual

foundational lessons in our full course.

I'm just have to presume or at least try to explain some of the lessons that we go into depth in the full course.

So one lesson that we learn is what constitutes an argument and its premises and conclusions that constitute an argument.

So premise is supposed to support the conclusion, but of course since this is a flawed argument,

there's something wrong with this support. Something about this premise doesn't support the conclusion.

So what is it? You see, what is it about this premise that doesn't support conclusion?

Labrador retrievers bark a lot. St. Bernard's don't bark a lot. We have a cross between a Labrador and a St. Bernard.

What does that mean about their barking? Does that mean that they're moderate barkers?

Well, I don't know. That depends on how barking gets passed on genetically and that depends on the environmental

effects that

we can have on a dog's predisposition to bark.

So I don't know if this is how the barking trait gets passed down

genetically and I don't know if like sort of raising a dog has a lot to do with barking.

So this is why it just doesn't make sense.

But we are not being asked to do a flawed question, flawed method reasoning question.

In which case we would just describe in say like more formal LSAT words what we just said.

Nor are we being asked to weaken this argument, which is something they could totally do.

If you've seen it in other logical reasoning questions where they ask you to weaken an argument,

in which case we would say, well, maybe that's not how barking gets passed down or basically reformulate what we just said.

Nor is this a strengthening question in which we have to say something like, oh, but that's precisely how

barking gets passed down.

It's the frequency of the mother and father dogs and you just get some sort of average of the frequency.

So that's how we would strengthen this argument. But here we're just trying to parallel what's wrong with this argument.

So we have to say, okay, A has a quality,

That's how you, that's how you, see that's a general form of this argument. Then you can make anything you want.

Cherry trees have very sweet tasting fruit and pear trees have very, you know, sort of not sweet tasting fruit.

Therefore a cherry pear hybrid tree is going to have sweet-ish fruit or something like that, right?

So let's see what we can do to find the right answer choice. And as we go through these answer choices,

I'll tell you about the lesson that we learned from our parallel method reasoning, flaw method reasoning lessons,

which is you have to anticipate the answer choices. In order to do this quickly,

you have to know what the answer choices are supposed to say, given a little bit of information.

So let's see how this plays out. All students who study diligently make good grades.

they don't make a great grade, right? But some students who do not study diligently also make a great grade.

But then this is already not, right? All students who study have good grades.

That's like the all Labrador Retrievers bark a great deal.

So we need a different set, you know, students who don't study diligently getting a different result, right?

Because that's what the St. Bernard is, is different from Labrador,

and barking infrequently is the opposite of barking a great deal.

So already A is really bad. That's what I mean by anticipating what it should be saying.

So Jane, and now we're talking about Jane studies somewhat diligently.

Okay, so that is a sort of a mix between studying diligently and studying not diligently.

But then the results aren't different. So do you see, what can we say?

Therefore, Jane makes somewhat good grades. Why?

Because all the students in this group make good grades, and some of the students in this group also make good grades.

So why should we say that she makes somewhat good grades?

It just doesn't, it's not this. It's not this structure that's being paralleled.

And all type B chemicals are non-toxic. Type B chemicals are non-toxic.

So this household cleaner, see, anticipate what it should be saying.

It should be saying if we mix these two things, if we get an AB, we get a toxic-ish kind of thing.

And this household cleaner is a mix of AB, perfect, we got this part.

Therefore, this cleaner is moderately toxic. Yeah, toxic-ish.

See how it just perfectly matches the structure.

C says all students in Hanson School live in Greene County.

You got Hanson School lives in this county, Edwards School lives in this other county.

So this is really good too. So we have members of the Perry family attend both Hanson and Edward.

Therefore, some live in Greene and some live in Wynne. Yeah, that's right.

This is a valid argument, in other words.

If we know that all people who attend this school live in Greene County,

all people who attend this school live in this other county, then yes, then absolutely,

it must be. If you have members of the Perry family that attend both of these schools,

then this family must not live together. Some of them must live in Greene County,

some of them must live in Wynne County. This is a valid argument.

But that's not so important. What's important is that it doesn't match

the structure of this argument. We're supposed to say someone who attends

Hanson School, I don't know, sometimes, or someone who attends Hanson School

and Edwards School together, then they live somewhere in between these two counties or

something like that. That would sort of be more right. But this is, as it stands, is very wrong.

Again, very wrong in the sense it's a wrong answer choice. Nothing wrong with this argument.

This is a very good argument. This says, all transcriptionists know shorthand,

therefore Bob knows both shorthand and calculus. That's also a valid argument.

If it's true that all transcriptionists know shorthand, and if it's true that all engineers

know calculus, and Bob is both of these, well, I guess he says he's worked as both of these.

So I don't know. I suppose working as both of these does mean that you are these things.

So again, a valid argument, but just doesn't match the flaw.

All transcriptionists know shorthand very well. All engineers don't know shorthand very well at all.

Bob is both a transcriptionist and an engineer, so he sort of knows shorthand well-ish.

That would be the matching of answer choice D to make the answer choice D correct.

He says all of Kanisha's dresses are very well made. All of Connie's dresses are very badly made.

so it's well-ish made. Half the dresses in this closet are very well made, half of them are very

badly made, therefore half are Kanisha's, half are... That's just totally bad.

I mean, maybe it's Jane's dresses. Maybe Jane owns dresses that are

half well made and half bad made, and you're in Jane's closet. That's the dress that you're seeing.

So it's a bad argument, terrible argument. This is the type of mistake that the LSAT will make,

again and again, on arguments. But not only is it a bad argument, more importantly,

it doesn't match the badness that this argument displays.