Wrong flaw. Just because the employees at this fast-food restaurant are the youngest and most inexperienced doesn’t mean customers will have to wait the longest! Maybe the lines at this restaurant are shorter than elsewhere, or maybe these employees happen to be naturally talented and speedy! But this isn’t the same flaw we saw in the stimulus, where a quality possessed by a whole was assumed to also be possessed by each of its parts.

Wrong flaw. Even if the members of the public relations department are deficient, the company might have few public relations needs and still be adequately served by the department! That isn’t the flaw from the stimulus, though. (B) is a bad match for the stimulus in a second way, as well: Rather than taking a whole to be representative of its parts, it takes parts (each member of the department) to be representative of a whole (the department overall).

A whole (the supercomputer) has certain qualities (most sophisticated and expensive); therefore, the author concludes that each of its parts must individually have those qualities, as well. Like the stimulus, this is an example of the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing a whole for its parts, wherein the author assumes that what’s true about a whole must also be true about its individual parts.

Wrong flaw. This argument ignores lots of possible scenarios—maybe the literature critics were paid to write positive reviews, or maybe they’re critics with bad taste! That isn’t the flaw from the stimulus, though. (D) is a bad match for the stimulus in a second way, as well: Rather than taking a whole to be representative of its parts, it takes parts (chapters) to be representative of a whole (the book).

No flaw. This is a valid argument. If passing a driving test is a necessary condition of being employed at the city’s transportation department, then each employee at the city’s transportation department must have passed a driving test.