Self-study
Support The police department has two suspects for the burglary that occurred last night, Schaeffer and Forster. █████████ ███ ██ ████████ ██████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ████████
Distilling The Flaw
If you’re like me, the stimulus might have initially struck you as a completely valid eliminating options argument. There are two options; it can’t be Option 1, so it must be Option 2.
But this is a Parallel Flaw question – valid arguments aren’t allowed! So there’s cause to noodle around with this stimulus until you can find a gap in the reasoning. As it happens, the gap lies in the idea that the list of suspects =/= the list of possible burglars. That is, the burglar might be neither Schaeffer nor Forster.
That’s a subtle flaw to catch – as mentioned above, it’s totally okay not to catch it at first. What’s not okay is moving on to the answer choices thinking “this argument actually seems fine to me.” It’s a subtle flaw, but you have plenty of reason to slow down and spend time looking for subtle flaws.
Anyway, we need an answer choice that looks a lot like a typical eliminating options argument, except that in reality there’s some other option the argument ignores. Here’s a template:
Two Options: established in a premise
Flaw: it could be neither option, though
Option 1: eliminated in a premise
Option 2: conclusion says it must be this
25.
Which one of the following █████████ ████████ █ ██████ ███████ ██ █████████ ████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████
a
It has been █████ ███ ████ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ███ █████ █████ █ ███ ███████ █████ ███ ████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ███ ████ █████ █ ███ ███████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ███ █████ ████ ████████
(A) does establish two options: building a new primate house, and refurbishing the polar bear exhibit.
But (A) affirms one option (primate house) and concludes it can’t be the other (polar bear exhibit). This assumes we can’t do both options.
The stimulus’ flawed logic assumes the burglar must be one of the suspects, when in fact it could be neither. (A)’s flawed logic assumes the zoo must choose only one of the options, when in fact it could do both. Those two concepts are not the same.
b
If Watson, a ███████ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██ █ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████ ████ ████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ██ ██████ ██████ ███ ██ ████████
(B) should fail your shallow dip when it uses “if, then” language. It should also be sus because of the subject matter overlap (both (B) and the stimulus talk about “suspects”), which is usually bait for people who don’t realize preserving subject matter is irrelevant in Parallel questions, which are all about structure.
Looking more closely, (B) does exhibit flawed reasoning, it’s just different flawed reasoning. Specifically, it confuses sufficiency for necessity and denies the sufficient condition:
Premise 1: Picked out of lineup → Reasonable to charge
Premise 2: /Picked out of lineup
________
Conclusion: /Reasonable to charge
c
If Iano Industries ████ ███ ██████ █████ ██ ████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ██ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ██ ████ █████ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ██████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████████
Here are several small things that should make (C) seem sus on your shallow dip:
- If, then language in the first sentence.
- Comparison of how one option is worse than the other instead of just eliminating one option.
- Normative language (Iano should borrow money) in the conclusion.
These are all solid reasons to pass (C) over as you search for one that actually matches. They’re also arguably enough to make (C) wrong on their own.
But maybe you picked (C) because you thought there might be some way for Iano to compete without borrowing money. If that’s you, (C) is wrong because the first premise firmly establishes that there is no other option: Iano must either borrow money or be unable to compete.
Let’s plug (D) into the template we made in the analysis section:
Two Options: Evansville and Rivertown
Flaw: considering two cities doesn’t mean those are the only possible cities
Option 1: Baxim isn’t moving to Evansville
Option 2: Baxim will move to Rivertown
(E) is wrong because it actually establishes that there are only two viable options (Slater and Gonzales) whereas the stimulus left open the possibility of other options.
Aside: This alone doesn't make (E) wrong, but notice that (E) also introduces a flaw not present in the stimulus. There's a facts vs. beliefs difference between saying “Slater will not win” and saying “Political analysts believe Slater will not win.”
d
Baxim Corporation announced ████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ███ ████████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ ███████████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███ █████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ██ ███████████ █████ ██ ███ ██ ████ ████ █████ ████ ████ ██ ██████████
Let’s plug (D) into the template we made in the analysis section:
Two Options: Evansville and Rivertown
Flaw: considering two cities doesn’t mean those are the only possible cities
Option 1: Baxim isn’t moving to Evansville
Option 2: Baxim will move to Rivertown
e
The only viable ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████ ███ █████████ █████████ ████████ ███████ ████ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ █████████
(E) is wrong because it actually establishes that there are only two viable options (Slater and Gonzales) whereas the stimulus left open the possibility of other options.
Aside: This alone doesn't make (E) wrong, but notice that (E) also introduces a flaw not present in the stimulus. There's a facts vs. beliefs difference between saying “Slater will not win” and saying “Political analysts believe Slater will not win.”