PrepTest 114

Incorrect. In this case, the proposal by Smith helps him, whereas Mullen's proposal hurts her, so this answer isn't parallel in a key way.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Mullen wants to raise taxes on the rich, but she's rich, so we shouldn't consider her proposal.

Answer Anticipation:
This answer features a weird version of an Attacking the Person flaw. It seems to be in some ways an accusation of hypocrisy, but it's a little bit off from that.

Here, there's a proposal on the table from Mullen—a tax increase for the rich. However, it's noted by the author that Mullen herself is rich, and thus the taxes would presumably fall on her. Because of this, the author concludes that we shouldn't adopt the proposal.

Why that's the case is hard to figure out—maybe we can't trust that it's actually in the interests of the non-rich to do so if a rich person wants to do it? In any case, we should look for an answer that similarly sees someone proposing something against their interests, and a conclusion that they shouldn't be taken seriously because of that conflict.

Answer Explanation:
Dr. Han is proposing something that would hurt him—he's a smoker, so a ban on smoking in public places would constrain his actions. Based on this, the argument concludes that the proposal shouldn't be given credence. That's the same flawed reasoning as the stimulus, so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
This argument had flawed reasoning that was in the realm of a common flaw—an accusation of hypocrisy—but it didn't quite fit that category. And that's fine! But when you note that something is subtly off from the standard, it's important to note it, as it's almost always relevant in analyzing the answers. Here, there were several answers that were very similar in the way that a view was dismissed because of some type of hypocrisy or bias, but the bias was in favor of the proposal instead of against it, invalidating the answer.

Incorrect. This answer is a direct attack on the character/reliability of the witness, so it's not similar to the stimulus where there was a skewed accusation of hypocrisy. Also, being convicted of fraud is a reason to at least be skeptical of a witness's testimony!

Incorrect. This answer features the dismissal of a proposal because it would help someone close to the proposer, not hurt the person proposing it.

Incorrect. This answer questions Dr. Wasow's expertise—it doesn't accuse him of proposing something against her own interests.