Q24 - Paleomycologists, scientists who study ancient forms o

[tommywallach]

PT 65, S4, Q24 (Match the Flaw)

(A) is correct.

Match the Flaw questions are assumption based, and often involve a bit of conditional logic. The key is to break down the argument"”ignoring the content entirely"”and then match the specific pieces of the argument to those in the answer choices. Remember that the order in which these pieces come is irrelevant, only the structure they eventually create.

In this case, we start with a general fact: All P --> know all P pubs.

We then move on to a specific person, M, who is acquainted with the scholarly publications of D: M --> knows D pubs. This fellow "D" also happens to be a paleomycologist: D --> P.

Finally, our conclusion: "Therefore, M is a P."

Our premises slightly reordered:

All P --> know all P pubs
D --> P
M --> knows pubs of D

Finally, our conclusion: M --> P

This is a pretty terrible argument. In terms of conditional logic, what’s missing is:

All people who know pubs of a P --> P

Stated more simply, all P’s know about publications, but non-P’s can know about them, too.

(A) We’re told that whenever a flight on GA is delayed, all connecting flights are delayed. We then move to something specific, much as we did in the stimulus"”Frieda’s connecting flight on GA was delayed. Finally, we conclude that her original flight must have been a delayed GA flight.

Any OF Delay --> all CF delayed
Frieda’s CF --> delayed

Conclusion: Frida’s OF --> delayed

The problem here is obvious. If any flight on GA was delayed, it would delay all connecting flights. But Frieda could have flown in on another airline, which was running perfectly on time, with a plan to catch the GA flight. There’s no way to know that her previous flight is the one that was delayed (or even that it was on GA). In logical terms:

All people on delayed CF --> on delayed OF

So, does this flaw match the flaw in our stimulus? Well let’s break it down: we are given an overall rule in both cases, which then becomes specific. Then, in both cases, we work backwards to a definitive statement. In other words, this mirrors very closely our original argument.


(B) In this answer choice, we never move from the general to the specific (from paleomycologists to Professor Mansour, or from flights on GA to Frieda’s flight). This is too great a lapse in structure to match the flaw correctly.

(C) Same as (B). We never get specific.

(D) In this answer choice, we do get a specific person, Gavin, so we need to read more closely.

All 1YE --> can RP
Gavin --> 1YE

Therefore, Gavin --> must RP

The flaw is straightforward; just because someone can do something doesn’t mean they are doing it. This is quite a bit different from the flaw in our original argument, however. If nothing else, it’s far more simplistic.

(E) Again, without the specification of an individual, this cannot correctly match the flaw made in the original argument.

[apfmek]

Hello,
I've been struggling with this question all day and still can't figure out why (d) doesn't make a correct answer.
I do get that (a) shows similar reasoning flaw as shown in the stimulus. However I can't figure out what is wrong with answer choice (d).
If we look into answer choice (d), it goes like,

Participate in retirement plan -> +1 years
Gavin -> +1 years
Therefore, Gavin -> participate in retirement plan

which(in my opinion) is similar to

Paleomycologists -> acquainted with other Ps' publications
Prof. Mansour -> acquainted with other Ps' publications
Therefore, Prof. Mansour -> Paleomycologists

Can you help me out?

Thanks in advance!

[joseph.m.kirby]

The flaw in this problem relates to a scope shift and a mistaken reversal. The scope shifts from all to one, and a conclusion is drawn from a mistaken reversal of information in the evidence:

If you are a PS, you know the work of all other PS.
A is a PS
B knows a PS (A)
------
Therefore, B is a PS

(A)
If your flight on Global is delayed --> all your connecting Global flights will be delayed
F has a Connecting Global flight that was delayed
----
Therefore, F's first flight on Global was delayed


(D) Tommy pointed out how this flaw is different than the one in the stimulus.

Been with company for a year or more --> can participate in retirement plan
G --> been with company for a year or more
----
G --> will participate

Be cautious not to misdiagram (D).

All can do condition 2 after doing condition 1

All can see the movie after buying a ticket
Buy a ticket --> you can see the movie
Johnny bought a ticket
----
Johnny can see the movie

We don't know that condition 2 is sufficient for condition 1. Perhaps people could see the movie by sneaking in, using a pass, or downloading the movie. From the information provided, we just know that after you buy a ticket, you can see the movie (there could be other means/ways/sufficient conditions).