PrepTest 122

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Perception cannot be a relationship resulting in a belief since we can have a belief about something we can't perceive.

Answer Anticipation:
That stimulus is . . . something. It's super abstract, and these really confusing philosophical arguments tend to deal in these abstractions to make it hard to track.

When that happens, ground yourself in the key terms that are being thrown around—and the repeated ones tend to be key. Here, the argument seems to be about perception and beliefs.

The opening line says that one thing can't be another—perception can't be . . . a relationship between a conscious being and thing that results in a belief. Why not? Because people can have beliefs about things they can't perceive (imperceptible).

So to shorten, we end up with the summary in the stimulus. From there, we can abstract it to set ourselves up to find the correct answer:
A can't be B, because we can have a key part of B without A.

Note that it's not 100% necessary to diagnose" the error in reasoning here, and it can be hard with these difficult philosophical/abstract arguments (though they usually feature a term shift). However, if we can get a handle on the structure, we can almost certainly find the correct answer anyway.

(Note that this has a partial negation/assuming only one sufficient condition for a given necessary condition, but that's less important than tracking the shared terms.)

Answer Explanation:
Art can't be something about aesthetic reactions, because we can have aesthetic reactions without art. That's the same structure as the stimulus, so this argument has the same flawed pattern of reasoning.

Key Takeaway:
For these abstract/philosophical arguments, focus on repeated terms. That'll help you track how the argument holds together and frequently the logic underlying it (even if you don't fully understand the content!).

Incorrect. The premise here (second sentence) doesn't mention liberty, so it doesn't feature the same structure of showing that a key part of what could be considered liberty is present without liberty.

Incorrect. The premise here deals with severity, which is a key difference from the stimulus where all the terms were binary (something either was or wasn't, there were no degrees).

Incorrect. This stimulus isn't about having B without A, but rather about something being impossible to compare, so there's a different underlying logic.

Incorrect. There are two premises here, which isn't necessarily enough to throw off a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question (though it would be sufficient to eliminate an answer in a Parallel Reasoning question), but it makes this answer suspect. This argument also introduces a key term in the premise that isn't reflected in the conclusion (understanding), which doesn't happen in the premise.