Subscription pricing
Although all contemporary advertising tried to persuade...only a small portion
I don't understand why E is right and C is wrong. Sufficient condition of being a good manager is failed in C so some must indeed B good managers on the basis of the premises. Is it not parallel because of that one extra step of failing sufficient?
40% chose C as the right answer and only 5% more percent got it right with E, yet I can't find a discussion of this difficult question anywhere.
Admin note: edited title; please use the format of "PT#.S#.Q# - [brief description]"
0
8 comments
@mgudesblatt21 I'm glad that could help a bit!
@akhamdamov715 thank you!!! that was really illuminating.
But even if you made that argument you're not paralleling the form/relationship provided.
In M some /DAD--->/GM you're creating a subset out a whole. There is a group of managers, some of whom are not good.
This is not the same relationship as the stimulus which suggests a cross-section (under the domain of contemporary advertising) between things that are persusuave and things that are morally reprehensible
CA-->P
CA some MR
Therefore P some MR
C presents an argument, but its not the same argument.
@dimakyure869 I see that good manager and managers are not the same, but if you take the contrapositive of the GM --> DAD, you get M some /DAD --> GM, which is a valid argument. However, I guess because there is a negation of an idea it fails to follow the stimulus even though an argument form could still be the same?
Managers and good managers are not the same thing.
Also, "some managers fail to do this" diverges from the stimulus structure, leading to a different argument form.
https://i.imgur.com/HYtEnBc.jpg
I'm still struggling on this question. I know why E is right but I'm having a hard time finding fault with C. #help
Okay, If you look at the question a bit closer. You will notice that the question has a flaw. The question has a part to whole flaw quality to it. Second, we want to parallel the structure.
Diagramming the argument:
Contemporary Advertising-->Persuade
Morally Apprehensive--S-->Contemporary Advertising
Persuasion--S-->Morally Apprehensive
Let's look at C:. Here is where C gets it wrong speaking about a manager and not all managers. It is not saying ALL just a manager. The first premise gets it wrong. The last two premise negate each one meaning the some with all.
Premise 2 - Managers-->Not Fail
Premise 3 - Managers ---> Good Manager
C will not work because second premise is what kills it.
Now, let's look at E. It is flipped around and let's untangle it.
Sonnets--> Short Poems
Sonnets---S--->Pluralism
Short Poems--S--> Pluralistic
It matches the argument's structure, and E is the right answer.
Anyone? I don't know if I am allowed to bump my own thread, but I feel like this is a worthy discussion. It's one of the most difficult parallel reasoning questions judging by the split in wrong-right AC choice %ages. I would encourage anyone who struggles with parallel reasoning to take a look at it so we can have a discussion about it.