The question stem reads: Each of the following arguments exhibits flawed reasoning similar to that in the argument above EXCEPT… This is a Parallel Flaw question.
The author states that each of the smallest particles in the universe has an “elegantly simple structure.” Since the universe is composed of these particles, the author concludes that the universe also has an “elegantly simple structure.” The argument makes a fallacy of composition (part to whole). Just because a part or all of the parts have a particular property, the property does not necessarily carry over to the whole. By a similar line of reasoning, we could conclude that because the parts of a car cannot move on their own, and a car is composed of those parts, the car itself must not be able to move.
Because this is an except question, the wrong answer choices will contain a fallacy of composition. The right answer choice could exhibit some other fallacy or be a valid argument.
Answer Choice (A) is incorrect. (A) matches the stimulus by saying that because the parts of a car have the property of being perfectly engineered, then the car (the parts put together) must also have the property of being perfectly engineered. The car's parts may be well-engineered, but the car could be designed and assembled in a terrible fashion. Eliminate (A).
Correct Answer Choice (B) does make an argument from part to whole. However, (B) is not a fallacious argument. If every part of the desk is made of metal, then it must be true the desk is made of metal. While the properties of the parts do not necessarily carry over to the whole, sometimes they do. You must use your judgment to determine whether a “part to whole” argument works or is fallacious. Because (B) makes a good argument, (B) is our right answer.
Answer Choice (C) is incorrect. (C) matches the stimulus by saying because bricks have the property of being rectangular, the wall of bricks (the bricks put together) must have the property of being rectangular. What if the wall is built in a circle? Eliminate (C).
Answer Choice (D) is incorrect. (D) matches the stimulus by saying that because each piece of wood has the property of being sturdy, then the desk (the wood put together) must also have the property of being sturdy. Perhaps the stool was poorly put together. Eliminate (D).
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. (E) matches our stimulus by saying that because each sentence of the novel has the property of being well constructed, the novel (all of the sentences put together) must also have the property of being well constructed. Eliminate (E).
The question stem reads: The reasoning in the lawyer's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument… This is a Flaw question.
The lawyer begins by making an analogy. He claims that a body of circumstantial evidence is similar to a rope. He claims that each piece of evidence is like a strand in that rope: just as adding more strings to the rope makes a rope stronger, adding more pieces of evidence strengthens the body of evidence. He then describes how if a strand of a rope is broken, the rope does not break, and it still retains much of its strength. He concludes that, similarly, if you discredit ("break") a few pieces of evidence, the overall body of evidence is still strong.
When analyzing an argument that uses an analogy, a good first step is to ask yourself, "Are the two things being compared actually similar?" As you increase the points of difference between the two things being compared, the analogy's strength diminishes. In this case, we want to determine where the lawyer's analogy between ropes and bodies of evidence frays apart. The idea that adding pieces of evidence to the body increases the strength of the body, like adding strands to a rope, makes sense and seems like a pretty good point of comparison. However, the analogy fails when we consider the fact that strands of rope are all the same. However, not all pieces of evidence are equal: some add much more strength than others. You have experience with this on the LSAT. Take away a premise that strengthens the argument, and the argument can survive. Take away a premise necessary to the argument, and the argument falls apart. So if we took away a few pieces of necessary evidence, the body would fall apart. However, that is contrary to the lawyer's conclusion. If you didn't see this, that is ok! When doing POE, prioritize answer choices that draw a distinction between ropes and bodies of evidence.
Correct Answer Choice (A) is what we discussed. The lawyer takes for granted that no evidence is more important to the body than others.
Answer Choice (B) is wrong. If you picked (B), you likely had trouble determining what (B) means. (B) says to take the strength of each piece of evidence independently and add them up. That will be greater than the strength of the evidence if you take the pieces altogether. If anything, the opposite is true: adding many pieces of circumstantial evidence together tends to count as better evidence than taking each individually.
Answer Choice (C) is not a problem for the argument. If you interpret "many = few": The point of the lawyer's argument is to show that if you take away some strands of evidence, then the body retains its strength, so the possibility is addressed. If you interpret "many"> few": then sure, the possibility is ignored. However, that is not a problem for the argument because the lawyers' conclusion is limited to taking away a few pieces of evidence. Either way, the argument is not flawed because of (C).
Answer Choice (D) is tempting, but we run into problems with the word "any." The lawyer has indicated that bodies of evidence share similarities to ropes. Adding more pieces of evidence or strands increases the strength of both.
Answer Choice (E) is incorrect. The lawyer does not use his own premise as a conclusion.