LR Question 20 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: The report released by the interior ministry states…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The report isn’t right.
REASONING: The prestigious and brilliant Senator Armand says the report can’t be right.
ANALYSIS: The report is on land reclamation, and Senator Armand is only an expert in math. Smart though she is, we can’t simply take her claims at face value. We need some actual evidence.
If she were a relevant expert we might believe her without demanding additional proof. Maybe.
___________
- This is a bad argument, because Albert’s father could have hidden the keys in a new location. But it doesn’t argue from authority.
- This is a good argument, if Gloria is telling the truth.
- This is a good argument. Dr. Treviso is a relevant expert, and we can believe him when he says the facts contradict Amos’ claim.
- This is a bad argument. Evelyn might simply have decided not to watch the late news, even though she was home on time. But the main flaw isn’t Robert’s lack of relevant authority.
- CORRECT. This is a bad argument. Lomas is a bicycle engineering expert. That sounds relevant, but it’s only partly so. Lomas isn’t exactly an expert on bicycle racers themselves. And there are many reasons why Adams could have lost the race. Maybe he fell.
Recap: The question begins with “The report released by the interior ministry states”. It is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flawed Parallel questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Flawed Parallel Reasoning Questions
- Conditional Reasoning Article: Learn about conditional statements.
- LR Diagrams Guide: Learn how to draw LR diagrams.
- Flaw drills: Practice identifying flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flawed Parallel Reasoning questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flawed parallel reasoning questions.
I got this one down to C and E pretty fast – I understand the rationale in hindsight – the credentials are much more analogous for E than C in hindsight.
I chose E over C though because of the rationales provided – the stimulus just says that the expert deemed it impossible without any qualification given, whereas E gave a reason with a qualification (“they couldn’t win a race that Amos was in”). The stimulus didn’t have that qualification, so I opted to C, whose reasoning was more similar in that respect.
How can we know what specific paralells matter and which ones dont?
The qualification given for E is less impactful than it may seem. “Couldn’t win a race in which Adams competed” does not actually provide justification or evidence for why Moira is incorrect. What if Adams fell? What if Adams was ill? What if Lamos just has a particular affinity for Adams and is not speaking to any facts? His statement does not really provide any meaningful evidence or qualification.
So, 2 things are true in both cases:
1. A reasonably qualified authority has made a report, and a person who is not an expert on the topic has deemed this report impossible.
2. The person has not provided evidence for why the report is impossible.
Try to articulate the main flaw in the stimulus’ argument. One way to summarize it is “A person who is not a relevant expert has deemed it impossible without evidence”. Then ask yourself if that flaw applies to the answer choices. You’ll quickly see that it does not apply to C. The doctor is a relevant expert who did provide evidence for his conclusion. Even if you didn’t immediately recognize that Lamos lacked evidence, you would still have better reason to go for E. But you’re on a good path if you got it down to those two fast!