QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Alex has never been pushed to do all he can.
REASONING: If you’ve never been pushed to do all you can, you’ll never do everything you’re capable of. Alex has not done all that he is capable of.
ANALYSIS: The argument makes an incorrect reversal. Not doing everything you’re capable of is a necessary condition for not having been pushed – the argument takes it to be a sufficient condition.
Maybe Alex is a tiny little baby. There’s an alternate explanation for why he hasn’t achieved his full potential. Bad baby.
___________
- CORRECT. Has dog ➞Knows companionship. Alicia knows the value of companionship; therefore she has a dog. As in the stimulus, this argument takes a necessary condition for a sufficient condition.
- This argument negates the sufficient condition (discovered something new) and then incorrectly negates the necessary condition (examined all possible solutions). This is a flaw, but it is a different flaw (incorrect negation vs. incorrect reversal).
- This correctly uses contrapositive reasoning. You could argue the conclusion is wrong because there is a middle ground between “not sufficient” and “sufficient.” That would be a different error, however.
- This is a good argument.
- This argument stinks, but it’s a different error. It switches from objects one could not afford to lose to objects that John could afford to lose.
Note: Watch out for answer choices with language that sounds similar to that used in the stimulus, such as C and E. They are occasionally right, but more often they are simply misleading. Look at the logic, not the words.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply