Logical reasoning PrepTest 101 · Section 3 · Question 16

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Accusation - K falsified data
That data is gone, but none of her more recent data has been falsified, so the accusation is false.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts with an accusation that is then analyzed and judged to be false.

How does it go about reaching that conclusion? It doesn't look at direct evidence of the accusation—that evidence doesn't exist. Instead, it looks at other, more recent instances where the accusation could be true and establishes that it isn't—K isn't guilty of data falsification in more recent experiments. From this, it concludes that the accusation she falsified the data in the earlier experiment should be thrown out.

However, just because she is innocent in more recent experiments doesn't mean she didn't falsify the data in that earlier experiment. The argument is assuming that, absent direct evidence, what is true of more recent instances is true of the original instance. Let's find an answer that commits the same type of error in reasoning.

Answer Explanation:
Someone is accused of a crime. There isn't direct evidence, but indirect evidence from more recent situations is used to dismiss the charge. This argument follows the same flawed pattern of logic as the stimulus, so it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
By far, the conclusion is the most common place for a (non-conditional/quantifier) Flawed Parallel Reasoning answer choice to go wrong. Be very clear about what elements in the conclusion of the stimulus are key to the flawed logic so that you can eliminate answers that are missing those elements or have additional elements that weren't present in the stimulus.

Incorrect. This argument doesn't dismiss the accusations, instead saying they should be discussed.

Incorrect. This argument does have a timeline element to it, but it doesn't dismiss a charge by looking at other examples of the person being accused's work.

Incorrect. The accusation here ends up being apparently justified, not dismissed.

Incorrect. The conclusion here is subjective—"From at least some points of view"—as opposed to the conclusion in the stimulus which states that the accusation "should be dismissed"—not just according to some, or from certain viewpoints.