Q14 - The commissioner has annouced that

[lavidaloca44]

I'm uncertain as to what exactly the flaw in the reasoning is. I thought that it was if someone was good in the past they would be good in the future and selected C which is the incorrect answer. How do you come to find D as the right answer and what is the flaw in the reasoning?

[bbirdwell]

Hey there,

Past/future is close, but misses the mark - and I don't think (C) is a good match for that, anyway, so you might've gone back to the original at that point and looked for a different flaw.

Take a look at the conclusion and the supporting evidence:

Khalid was on a 7-member panel that was fair and reasonable.

Therefore, as sole arbiter of another case, Khalid will be fair and reasonable.

Do you spot the flaw now?

[vswamy]

I spot the flaw in this question but I do not understand why the answer is D. Could you explain that to me?

[bbirdwell]

The flaw is that the argument equates the qualities of a group with the qualities of an individual member of that group:

The 7-member group was fair, so an individual from that group (Khalid) will be fair.

(D) does the same thing. It states that the realty group had fewer sales and then concludes that an individual member of that group (Ula) must also have had fewer sales.

This is not a logical argument. It's entirely possible that the group as a whole had fewer sales, yet an individual member had record-breaking sales. This is just like the original argument. It's entirely possible that the group as a whole was fair and reasonable, yet an individual member is biased and criminal.

[b91302310]

In this question, is the flaw in the argument "to infer the future based on the past"?
I understand why other answer choices are wrong but I am not sure about why (C) is correct.
Could anyone explain it?

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

I think your confusion may have stemmed from looking up the answer for the wrong section (this q is from Section 4, not Section 2 as you originally stated) -- the correct answer to this question is (D), not (C).

To simplify, the argument is essentially saying that since a group made one decision well, one member of that group, by himself, will also make a decision well. The flaw is in assuming that what applies to the group applies to the individual, and (D) the same issue -- the author is assuming that what must be true for her "group" is true for Ula Borg.

Hope that helps! Please follow up if you have any unresolved concerns.

[b91302310]

It helps! Sorry for the mistake...

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

oh no worries at all - glad it was helpful!

[inesa909]

Something that I find interesting in regards to this question is AC (E) because it seems like it is attempting to attack the flaw by different means.

(E) states: The members of the local historical society unanimously support designating the First National Bank building a historical landmark. Since Evelyn George is a member of that society, she undoubtedly favors according landmark status to the city hall as well.

Is it just me or does the term "unanimously" make this answer choice completely valid? Without the term "unanimously," this would be the correct answer.

[redcobra21]

"The 7-member group was fair, so an individual from that group (Khalid) will be fair.

(D) does the same thing. It states that the realty group had fewer sales and then concludes that an individual member of that group (Ula) must also have had fewer sales."

Hey Brian and Mike,

Thanks for the helpful explanation. Just a question though. It seemed to me like the reasoning in the stimulus was that since the group had a quality for something in the past, an individual who was a member of the group would have the same quality for something that was going to happen in the future. I think that's what you were saying when you said that Khalid WILL be fair.

However, I'm not sure why D employs a parallel method because there is no implication of something that will happen in the future. It says that since the group had a quality for something in the past, an individual who was a member of the group would have the same quality for that same thing that happened in the past. It is flawed reasoning, but it didn't strike me as something that was parallel to the stimulus since the stimulus showed that Khalid WOULD show the same quality in a new case while the answer choice showed that Ula HAD shown the same quality in the same past case

What are your thoughts? I'd love to hear what you think, and thanks a bunch!

[cyt5015]

"The 7-member group was fair, so an individual from that group (Khalid) will be fair.

(D) does the same thing. It states that the realty group had fewer sales and then concludes that an individual member of that group (Ula) must also have had fewer sales."

Hey Brian and Mike,

Thanks for the helpful explanation. Just a question though. It seemed to me like the reasoning in the stimulus was that since the group had a quality for something in the past, an individual who was a member of the group would have the same quality for something that was going to happen in the future. I think that's what you were saying when you said that Khalid WILL be fair.

However, I'm not sure why D employs a parallel method because there is no implication of something that will happen in the future. It says that since the group had a quality for something in the past, an individual who was a member of the group would have the same quality for that same thing that happened in the past. It is flawed reasoning, but it didn't strike me as something that was parallel to the stimulus since the stimulus showed that Khalid WOULD show the same quality in a new case while the answer choice showed that Ula HAD shown the same quality in the same past case

What are your thoughts? I'd love to hear what you think, and thanks a bunch!

Hello, I'd like to give a shot before experts answer it. I think this is not a using past to predict future flaw, but using group characteristics to justify the individual's characteristics flaw. The premise didn't say in the Amlec labor dispute, Judge Khalid will be "reasonable and fair"; instead, the two sides are confident with the reasonableness and fairness of Judge Khalid. They are characteristics of the judge, not future behaviors. Hope that helps!

[ohthatpatrick]

Oooh, fantastic response.

I'm very sympathetic to the "what was true in the past will be true in the future" vibe of this question, but it also definitely contains a Whole-to-Part flaw.

Once in a blue moon, you see a Match the Flaw question that actually asks you to Match both flaws committed in the stimulus.

But otherwise, you just need to be flexible if you see more than one flaw in the original. The correct answer might not embody everything the original argument had. It only has to be the "most parallel" of the options to be the credited response.

However, if we examine the wording really closely as the previous poster did, we find that there really ISN'T a claim made about the future. The conclusion is asserting an enduring trait about someone, based on that someone belonging to a group that exhibited that trait.

(D) isn't a perfect fit, but it's the best we get.

Nice work!

[WaltGrace1983]

(A) Would be valid had it not been for the phrase "recently elected." We know that IF you are a rep, THEN you must be a part of the board (R → B). Marcia IS a rep and she thus IS a part of the board, but she may not be "recently elected;" so she may not be on that list. Falsely equates the necessary condition to something else. Wrong flaw.

(B) Mistakes necessary for sufficient. Wrong flaw.

(C) Mistakes necessary for sufficient. Wrong flaw.

(E) Is this not just a bit ridiculous? Just because you support designating the Bank a landmark doesn't mean that you support designating city hall a landmark. This argument sucks.