Q17 - Of the two proposals

[bbirdwell]

Our job is to identify the flaw, and then find an argument that contains the most similar flaw.

So what's wrong with the reasoning in the original?

The argument says, concerning the traffic problem, X is better for the city than Y because, in the past, Y has supported its own interests to the detriment of the city.

Reference to past behavior is not a logically good reason to reject a current proposal, so we should look for an argument that looks to the past to support a current decision.

(A) X should be rejected because it does not serve the city's interest. Not a match!

(B) school board should support X because X was recommended by consultants. Not a match!

(C) X is better than Y because X supports city as a whole but Y protects special interests. Really close, but not a match! It's a good choice until the end. We need it to say Y has protected special interests in the past.

(D) not a match.

(E) X (light rail) is better for suburbs than Y (its opponent: city government), because Y has always ignored needs of the suburbs. Due to this reference to the past as support for its conclusion, this choice is a good match!

Does that help?

[cyruswhittaker]

This question confused me because E doesn't seem to compare two different proposals but rather seems to illustrate why a particular proposal will be beneficial based on the fact that people who oppose the proposal itself have always ignored the needs.

[evelina.chang]

I was confused by that as well. I immediately eliminated that answer choice because it didn't compare two proposals. I guess this teaches me to be more careful in the future.

[lhermary]

Question

It was between C and E.

C doesn't say in the past

E does say the past but doesn't compare two proposals.

How are we supposed to know which of these errors is least erroneous?

Thanks

[sumukh09]

Question

It was between C and E.

C doesn't say in the past

E does say the past but doesn't compare two proposals.

How are we supposed to know which of these errors is least erroneous?

Thanks

Actually there is a comparison, it's subtle, but it's there! Do we really need to know who the two parties are? As long as we know there are in fact two parties then that's enough to draw a comparison, and the comparison is drawn because E says the "main opponent" is the city government. This parallels nicely with the stimulus as the stim says "X is the opponent so we should do Z" or "Smith Stores is the opponent so we should adopt Chen's plan"

E also says "X is the opponent so we should do Z" or "the main opponent is the city government so we should do the planned light-rail system"

However for C, the premise supporting the conclusion doesn't address the fact that it's the opponent of the proposal that's influencing which proposal be adopted. Further, we don't know if the city council in C is the "main" or "principal" opponent and whether it is for that reason the alternative proposal should be adopted.

To further hash this one out, let's take a look at the core of the argument presented in the stimulus vs. answer choice E:

Principal supporter of Riley's Plan is Smith Stores ----> Chen's plan is better and therefore should be adopted

E: Main opponent is the city government ---> Planned Light Rail System will serve suburban areas well and thus should be adopted

We can essentially ignore the part about how they've always done this in the past.

C says: mayor's budget addresses the needs of the city as a whole ---> mayor's is preferable over city council's

See how this doesn't parallel with E and the stimulus?

[dean.won]

for p flaws as opposed to straight ps, i was under the impression that structure is less important than the flaw. this makes sense b/c the structure for c is more parallel with the structure of the stim whereas the flaw for e is more parallel with flaw in the stim.

[Alvanith.law]

I am a little bit confused.

I chose (e) but based on another perception of the flaw.

The stimulus is essentially:

P: B is bad.
C: A is better than B.

I thought the problem is that we know nothing about A. Even though B is truly bad, we cannot reach a conclusion that A must be better. A could be even worse. The flaw is that we cannot conclude something absolute about A solely based on an one-side story of B.

(e) mirrors this flaw. We cannot say the plan is good solely based on the one-side story that the alternative is bad.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me try to tidy up a few of the really key points/questions made in the last few posts:

- The last poster is correct: the original argument also had the flaw of not giving us any support for why we should pick Chen's proposal. (E) mirrors this flaw, as well as the other flaw of citing past behavior as a means of dismissing a current opinion.

This is a reason why I didn't like (C). (C) actually PROVIDES a premise for why we should go with the mayor's proposal ("it addresses the needs of the city as a whole") while the original argument never provided a reason why we should go with Chen's plan.

- The poster before that is correct: when you're doing Match/Parallel the Flaw (vs. Match/Parallel the Reasoning), the important thing to match is the flaw, not the structure.

You'll sometimes see correct answers on Match the Flaw insert a significant structural difference (for example, the correct answer might contain an "either/or" statement even though the original didn't).

Don't disqualify an answer based on that, if that answer choice DOES correctly replicate the same reasoning flaw.

If more than one answer choice replicates the same reasoning flaw (rarely the case), THEN start comparing them based on which is more structurally similar to the original. Most of the time, though, we're just going through each answer choice looking to see if the way we articulated the original flaw could also apply to this answer choice.

One previous poster said "It was between C and E. C doesn't say in the past, while E does say the past but doesn't compare two proposals. How are we supposed to know which of these errors is least erroneous?"

Why was comparing two proposals a reasoning flaw?

Was it wrong for the original author to compare two proposals and argue that one is better than the other?

No, in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that.

Was it wrong for the original author to conclude that because someone acted a certain way before that they are clearly acting the same way again? Yes, that is a reasoning flaw.

Hope this helps.

[Mab6q]

Hey Patrick,

I really didn't see this as an issue of past vs. present, but instead as focusing on the proponents of the opposing view, which is irrelevant to the question of whether the supporting view has merit. In other words, the fact that Smith Stores has an interest in R's plan, and in the past Smith Stores have done things to the detriment of the city, it doesn't tell us that any plan other than R's plan will be better for the city as a whole.

E seems to share this issue. Just because the opponent of the light-rail is the city, and the city has a history of ignoring the needs of the suburban areas, it doesn't mean the light-rail will be beneficial for that reason.

[ohthatpatrick]

I think you're definitely right about that. We could criticize the argument on the level of "assuming past behavior is again represented in the current situation" as well as "critiquing the merits of a plan/proposal by critiquing the people who support/oppose the proposal".

Those are both apt objections. I just went with the former since that was the language of the original post as well as the follow-up questions. But you can see (E) is definitely capturing your complaint as well.

Nice addition to the thread!

[WaltGrace1983]

- The poster before that is correct: when you're doing Match/Parallel the Flaw (vs. Match/Parallel the Reasoning), the important thing to match is the flaw, not the structure.

You'll sometimes see correct answers on Match the Flaw insert a significant structural difference (for example, the correct answer might contain an "either/or" statement even though the original didn't).

Don't disqualify an answer based on that, if that answer choice DOES correctly replicate the same reasoning flaw.

What about when a parallel flaw has a prescriptive conclusion ("we should do this, we ought to do that," etc)? Should that be replicated in the answer choice? I was under the impression that this was so. For example in 33.3.18, I eliminated 3 answer choices because they included a prescriptive conclusion and there wasn't one in the stimulus. Is there anything else (assuming that I am correct) that really SHOULD be matched?

Thanks

[ohthatpatrick]

What I was saying before is that the only thing that SHOULD (or must) be replicated is the flaw.

It's possible to replicate a part/whole flaw, for example, with two arguments, one of which has a prescriptive conclusion and the other of which has a declarative conclusion.

Original:
Each member of the committee is an efficient worker. Thus, the committee will be an efficient committee.

Correct answer:
We shouldn't put our trust in any individual to run the government. Thus, we shouldn't put our trust in a group of individuals to run the government.

So it's true that by enlarge the correct answer has a similar structure to the original and it's useful to act like it will (that can allow you to quickly sidestep unlikely answer choices), but you only PICK an answer when you verify that it replicates the original flaw. If the structurally similar choices don't replicate the original flaw, then you need to consider those structural mismatches you initially sidestepped.

Make sense?