Logical reasoning PrepTest 146 · Section 2 · Question 24

Incorrect. As soon as this argument establishes that there are "other methods" of treating the patient, we're no longer dealing with the same argument structure, and that structure was related to the flaw.

Incorrect. First, this argument has some conditional logic features that call it into question. However, here, in order to reach the conclusion, both necessary conditions from the premise would need to be ruled out (not Lay off workers AND not New business → not Outbid), which is different from the stimulus. Additionally, the argument assumes workers won't be laid off without addressing it at all, and the conclusion is about expectations (based on a premise about expectations). There are a lot of issues here, but they're not the same as the stimulus.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
There are only two views about where a painting's value comes from: formal qualities, or meaning. But there's no good argument for the value coming from formal qualities, so it must come from meaning.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts by establishing that there are only two plausible views as to where a painting's aesthetic value comes from, so this argument isn't ignoring other possible sources of value. Then, it establishes a premise that seems to rule one out, thus leading to a conclusion about the other. That is a valid method of reasoning, but this is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question, so we should dig into the premise ruling out the one option to see where it falls short since it's really the only place where a flaw could exist!

Here, the premise ruling out the formal characteristics as being where the value comes from states that there "exists no compelling general account" explaining it. However, that doesn't say that there can't be such an account, just that no one has made it yet. It's essentially saying that since no one has made a good argument for an option, that option is wrong. But maybe there is a compelling general account that just hasn't been made yet.

In short, the argument is flawed because it treats the lack of a compelling argument in favor of an option as enough to rule that option out.

Answer Explanation:
This argument establishes two options (economic or political). It then rules one out based on a lack of a compelling argument for it ("no historian has shown convincingly"), concluding the other. That's the same structure and flaw as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
The argument here relied on a lack of a compelling argument to rule out one option. However, a lack of a compelling argument doesn't prove that the opposite is true—that's a classic flaw on the exam! When you see an argument resting on a lack of compelling evidence or arguments on one side, then you know you've found the flaw.

Incorrect. Similar to (B), this answer has a conditional rule that it builds its argument around, which is different from the stimulus. Here, the argument assumes that, since one optional necessary condition didn't happen, neither did the sufficient, thus guaranteeing the other optional necessary condition didn't happen. That's some type of weird reversal. Shorter version? The argument establishes as a fact that an option doesn't apply, as opposed to in the stimulus where it only established that no good argument has been made for that option.

Incorrect. This argument does establish two options, but it does so to try to show that both options lead to the same result. The flaw here is that it fails to show one option leads to the same result—there's a term shift between some people sitting out the election and losing that election.