Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 2 · Question 23

Incorrect. This answer sounds good on first read, but we need to be careful and track ideas as they're referenced! Here, a claim is universally rejected—that one author wrote this entire collection. Evidence showing that claim—the universally rejected one—is false hasn't been cited before, and that's used to support the view that the rejected claim is "quite likely." The rejection and ultimate acceptance of the likelihood of the claim match up but the premise doesn't. In the stimulus the premise is that an attack on the rejected claim is bad. In this answer the premise is that a valid attack on the rejected claim hasn't been cited before. In other words the stimulus is about someone launching a flawed attack on a claim; the answer is about failing to cite a successful attack on a claim. Different flaw!

Incorrect. This answer starts off stating that a claim is more or less universally accepted, not rejected. The conclusion also states that it's this accepted view that's probably true.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
R: Finalism has been universally rejected. This book launches a flawed attack on the philosophy, and so finalism must be more reasonable than people give it credit for.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument introduces a "universally rejected" viewpoint that is then attacked by a book being reviewed. However the attack in the book is flawed misunderstanding the viewpoint that it attacks. From this the argument reaches the opposite of the universal viewpoint—that finalism is "more plausible" than thought.

Has there been any new evidence that supports finalism? No—the Reviewer doesn't offer evidence in favor of the theory. Instead she focuses on a failed attack on the theory to suggest it might be plausible. That's a variation of a common flaw—an absence of evidence flaw. Just because an attack on a viewpoint is flawed doesn't mean that the viewpoint being attacked is thus plausible or supported.

We should look for an answer that similarly shows an attack on a viewpoint has a flaw (specifically here that it misunderstands that viewpoint) and from that it concludes that the attacked viewpoint is more reasonable than believed.

Answer Explanation:
This answer starts off with a rejected claim—aluminum is as good as titanium for bike frames. An engineer trying to prove that aluminum isn't as good as titanium does so under a misunderstanding. The argument then concludes that aluminum being as good as titanium for bike frames is more reasonable than believed. That's the same absence of evidence flaw as the stimulus so this is the correct answer!

Key Takeaway:
When the author reaches the polar opposite conclusion of an opposing point check to see if it's based on a flaw in that opposing point. When it is there's a good chance that the argument is committing an absence of evidence flaw. Just because an opposing point hasn't provided conclusive evidence or a valid argument doesn't mean the opposite conclusion is true.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't start with a rejected claim, and it's dealing with a timeline issue/temporal flaw in discussing this year vs. more than one year old. Different flaw, so we can eliminate this answer.

Incorrect. The conclusion here reinforces the initial belief, so it's not committing the same flaw.