PT1.S3.Q2 - People who are red/green color-blind

PROMISED LAND

Am I missing something here?

This is a parallel method of reasoning question, and I know what the right answer is, but I thought parallel method of reasoning questions had to have a valid argument form.

Isn't this an invalid argument form / sufficiency necessity confusion:

X--->/Y

Gerald (/Y)

Gerald (X)

Isn't it wrong to say /Y therefore, we conclude X.
What am I missing here! This is an earlier test, so that could be the issue...

help

McBeck418

I don't think they favour valid or invalid arguments in this question type. They just want you to parallel the reasoning structure. You're correct to suggest thats an invalid argument form. So the answer choice has to make that same error.

PROMISED LAND

Thank you @McBeck418! I thought maybe my Lawgic was off or something. I was really confused b/c I thought parallel MOR questions were for valid argument forms only and Flawed parallel MOR questions were for invalid argument forms only. Now I know parallel MOR can have both valid/invalid argument forms, and flawed MOR, of course, just invalid argument forms. I listened to a podcast that helped to clear it up!