PrepTest 145

Incorrect. This answer doesn't highlight a few counterexamples that are used to disregard a category.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Many concepts fall into a certain type of category (dichotomous pairs). However, science has demonstrated that some of the concepts believed to fall into this type of category don't, so the categorization should generally be abandoned.

Answer Anticipation:
Yet another argument in this section with high-level, conceptual/abstract content that can be hard to follow! However, like many questions with a stimulus featuring this type of content, we can ignore it and focus on the logic.

Here, the argument starts by bringing up a certain general categorization. From there, it brings up a few examples that were believed to fit in it, but have since been shown not to. And then it concludes by saying that these counterexamples are enough to generally abandon the categorization.

But are they? Can a system of categorization be useful even if it doesn't account for all things believed to fit in it? Sure. Just because a handful of things believed to be described by it have been shown to fall outside of it, there could be millions more that still fit in and are better understood through that lens. There are two counterexamples here—that's hardly enough to throw out an entire classification system that never purported to explain all concepts!

Let's find an answer that similarly throws a broader category out because a few examples that don't fit in.

Answer Explanation:
This argument uses the example of "some" antianxiety drugs with bad side effects to throw out antianxiety drugs altogether. That's throwing a whole category out based on a few examples that don't work—same flaw, so this is our answer.

Key Takeaway:
Sometimes, you'll get a flawed argument that doesn't have a flaw that falls nicely into one of the common categories. When that happens, describing the flaw or identifying a key element that will have to show up in the correct answer is key to getting through a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question.

Incorrect. This argument is valid.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't throw a broader category out because of a few counterexamples. Rather, it makes a recommendation based on what's likely to happen based on a general rule—in other words, it applies something general instead of ruling something general out.

Incorrect. This argument is arguably valid. If it's flawed, it has to do with timeline issues, not counterexample issues.