Q24 - Newscaster: In order for the

[leweeg]

Picked D. Thought this was a reversal of logic... but noticed this was not a flaw in reasoning parallel question. Must have assumed something wrong?

Can someone assit in explaining the logic and answer choices?

[bbirdwell]

It's almost a reversal in logic, but not quite (see bold below).

1. public participate --> understand
2. mayor's speech has stated in these terms
C: so now public at least might be able to participate.

The "softness" of the conclusion will be an easy way to eliminate answers before getting too tangled up in the logic. In fact, we can eliminate A, B, and D on this basis alone -- all of the conclusions in these choices are definite, whereas C and E have the telltale "might."

Then we just take a close look at C and E to see which one is a better match.

(C) want to be a teacher --> don't confuse; Hugo wants to be a good teacher. Right here we can eliminate this choice, as it has deviated from the original pattern. In order to follow the original, it would need to say "Hugo doesn't confuse..."

(E) survive in cold --> warm clothing; Jerome has warm clothing; therefore, he might be able to survive. This is a match!

[chike_eze]

It's almost a reversal in logic, but not quite (see bold below).

1. public participate --> understand
2. mayor's speech has stated in these terms
C: so now public at least might be able to participate.

Wow. I also thought the argument was flawed, even though I read "match the reasoning" as the question type (go figure). I actually circled D, but picked E in the end because of "might". But in my mind, I thought "hmm, E is flawed, but it's closer to the flaw in the prompt (than E) because of the word 'might' ".

So, if I understand you correctly, even though we go from...

X --> Y to Y --> X (might occur)

the argument is not flawed because Y --> X could be true or false? hence the "might".

[bbirdwell]

Pretty much. I'd look at it more like this:

We know that X --> Y.

And we know we have Y.

And then we conclude that, since Y, maybe X.

That's totally true. And maybe A, B, D, ZZ, QQQ, and "maybe" an infinite number of other things.

The pattern to see is that we are given a condition, then given the necessary element (right side), and then informed that MAYBE the sufficient has been met.

This is all totally logical. Notice how it specifically avoids making the common flaw of being given X --> Y and then concluding that Y --> X.

[nmop_apisdn2]

Pretty much. I'd look at it more like this:

We know that X --> Y.

And we know we have Y.

And then we conclude that, since Y, maybe X.

That's totally true. And maybe A, B, D, ZZ, QQQ, and "maybe" an infinite number of other things.

The pattern to see is that we are given a condition, then given the necessary element (right side), and then informed that MAYBE the sufficient has been met.

This is all totally logical. Notice how it specifically avoids making the common flaw of being given X --> Y and then concluding that Y --> X.

In other words, the logic of E is not flawed (same as the not flawed logic in the stimulus) because it doesn't say conclusively that Y caused X. It says that since we have Y, it MIGHT cause X.

Make sure to pay attention to the strength of modifier words. Those are EXTREMELY important in parallel questions.

Right off of the bat, you could have eliminated A, C, and D simply by looking at the strength of the conclusion; only B and E have a similar type of strength in the conclusion as the stimulus.

HTH.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

The reasoning in the argument is that because a necessary condition for meaningful public participation has been met, that meaningful public participation is at least possible.

Correct Answer
Answer choice (E) correctly parallels the reasoning in the stimulus. A requirement of survival in a very cold climate has been met, so survival in a very cold climate is at least possible.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is a valid argument but utilizes contrapositive argument structure. The strength of the conclusion provides the clearest indication that this argument deviates from the reasoning in the stimulus.
(B) is a valid argument but utilizes positive argument structure. The strength of the conclusion provides the clearest indication that this argument deviates from the reasoning in the stimulus.
(C) is not a valid argument. Wanting to be a good teacher and actually being one are two different things. Additionally, even if Hugo was a good teacher, this would meet the sufficient condition (not the required condition) provided in the relationship established in the evidence.
(D) is too strong. The structure is similar to that provided in the stimulus, but this argument is flawed. Rather than suggesting that discovering the meaning of certain seldom-used words is at least possible, this argument suggests that Paul must have discovered the meaning of those words.

[DavidH327]

The reasoning in the argument is that because a necessary condition for meaningful public participation has been met, that meaningful public participation is at least possible.

Correct Answer
Answer choice (E) correctly parallels the reasoning in the stimulus. A requirement of survival in a very cold climate has been met, so survival in a very cold climate is at least possible.

Incorrect Answers
(A) is a valid argument but utilizes contrapositive argument structure. The strength of the conclusion provides the clearest indication that this argument deviates from the reasoning in the stimulus.
(B) is a valid argument but utilizes positive argument structure. The strength of the conclusion provides the clearest indication that this argument deviates from the reasoning in the stimulus.
(C) is not a valid argument. Wanting to be a good teacher and actually being one are two different things. Additionally, even if Hugo was a good teacher, this would meet the sufficient condition (not the required condition) provided in the relationship established in the evidence.
(D) is too strong. The structure is similar to that provided in the stimulus, but this argument is flawed. Rather than suggesting that discovering the meaning of certain seldom-used words is at least possible, this argument suggests that Paul must have discovered the meaning of those words.

I thought C would be a valid argument as well because the answer choice does not talk about actually being a good teacher.
Stimulus says:
if one wants to be a good teacher one cannot confuse the students.
Hugo wants to be a good teacher
Therefore, one might be able to avoid confusing students.

[ohthatpatrick]

The original structure was:
P1: X requires Y. (Meaningful public participation ---req's---> issues stated clearly)
P2: Y has been met. (Mayor has stated issues clearly)
Conc: Thus, X might be possible. (meaningful public participation might happen)


The structure of (C) is
P1: X requires Y. (Being good teacher ---req's---> not confusing most students)
P2: X has been met. (Hugo wants to be good teacher)
Conc: Thus, Y might be possible. (Hugo might avoid confusing most students)

For (C) to match the original, it should sound like this (assuming the first sentence remains the same):

One cannot confuse the majority of one's students if one wants to be a good teacher. Hugo does not confuse the majority of his students. Therefore, he might want to be a good teacher.

Hope this helps.